How do I defend Celibacy?

[Charlemagne_III]

Are male children more likely to be in danger from homosexual men than female children are from heterosexual men? I know its unPC to ask but I would like to know.

To answer your question:

wnd.com/2002/04/13722/

 

[HabemusFrancis]

Well riddle me this. If there were substanial amoung of married priests, and the celibacy requirement was just optional, would the American Catholic Church be 3 billion dollars in debt due to sex abuse lawsuits, and would bishops have covered up for predators and tried to protect them from police? I dont really know one way or another.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well riddle me this. If there were substanial amoung of married priests, and the celibacy requirement was just optional, would the American Catholic Church be 3 billion dollars in debt due to sex abuse lawsuits, and would bishops have covered up for predators and tried to protect them from police? I dont really know one way or another.

Even with a married priesthood you could not entirely stop pedophiles from sneaking in. But as the article I cited above suggests, the number of lawsuits might be significantly diminished because heterosexuals are less likely than homosexuals to be pedophiles.

Both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles should be removed from ministry as soon as they are found out. That too will significantly limit the number of lawsuits. And it should be abundantly clear to priests when they are ordained that they have no other future than to be removed from ministry if they are found out. That is the fairest and kindest way for all concerned. The Church simply cannot afford to have this become a permanent and widespread stain on her ministry.

 

[HabemusFrancis]

You do only have one source though. Part of the problem I think is some priests knew about the abuse but did not disclose, for fear ( justifiably) of being fired or demoted by the bishop. I think though that was just the way some hierarchs liked it, keeping everything “in house” which is a terribly depressing thought.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You do only have one source though. Part of the problem I think is some priests knew about the abuse but did not disclose, for fear ( justifiably) of being fired or demoted by the bishop. I think though that was just the way some hierarchs liked it, keeping everything “in house” which is a terribly depressing thought.

Just as our priests and bishops expect us to have the courage to confess our sins, we expect more courage from our priests and our bishops, and our children are entitled to it.

 

[JRRTFAN]

To be precise, most of the abuse that occurred was with older boys…and that means that the abusers were not technically pedophiles but homosexual predators. Therefore, the problem is not with celibacy but with homosexuality.

That is the angle to the story that the liberal press does not want to accentuate.

Celibacy Isn’t the Problem
By: Christopher Kaczor
catholic.com/magazine/articles/celibacy-isn%E2%80%99t-the-problem

That’s exactly right. Homosexual clergy was at least 80% of the problem. celibacy had nothing to do with it. A heterosexual priest, if he is set on having sexual experience, has a myriad of women coming to him in vulnerable situations that the evilly inclined could easily exploit. The heterosexual celibate is completely unlikely to go after a 13 year old boy.

 

[jimmy]

I think there are multiple problems with the argument that the abuse is the result of the celibacy requirement. Two come to mind immediately. Firstly, is the assumption that a lack of sex leads someone to have sexual desire for children, especially male children. There is no indication and no evidence that that is the case. Just because someone doesn’t have sex with an adult woman doesn’t lead to them having any inclination toward a male child.

Second, they have to establish that the rate of abuse is higher in the CC priesthood than in other professions in which an adult has authority over children and are allowed to marry simultaneously. They must establish that there is a statistical significance that indicates there is a correlation between celibacy and abuse of minors. Otherwise it is just speculation.

There are also many examples in secular society of married people abusing children. The Penn State scandal with Jerry Sandusky is one example. Look at all the instances of teachers abusing students. Is there a statistical difference between the rate of abuse in the priesthood and the rate of abuse in these secular situations?

 

[jimmy]

You do only have one source though. Part of the problem I think is some priests knew about the abuse but did not disclose, for fear ( justifiably) of being fired or demoted by the bishop. I think though that was just the way some hierarchs liked it, keeping everything “in house” which is a terribly depressing thought.

Look at Penn State, and other organizations that have the same problem. Covering up of abuse isn’t all that rare, and it happens in other organizations as well.

 

[BelovedApostle]

Thanks, very helpful.

I see an number of people are on here saying that most the priests were not pedophiles per se but rather homosexuals? That leads to another question, are homosexuals more likely to be interested in minors ( not necessarily children) than heterosexual men? At one point I would have been appalled at such a question, but now, I am not so sure…

I get the sense that gay men are more open or tolerant of sexual attraction towards teens ( or at least men who are much younger than they are?). I have read up on a lot of the gay activists of the 50s-70s. Though none were pedophiles ( as far as I know) many of them had sexual relations with mid- late teenagers, which could get them thrown in prison today ( I don’t think police back then viewed sex with teens as quite as much of a crime as they do now:shrug:?)

Also the infamous pedophile rights group NAMBLA had some prominent supporters in the gay rights movement, until they and their kind were excluded from the movement due to bad publicity. Is it true? Are male children more likely to be in danger from homosexual men than female children are from heterosexual men? I know its unPC to ask but I would like to know.

Habemus,

I’m going to answer that question from a rather unique perspective. I am a man who has some degree of unwanted attraction to pubescent/post-pubescent teenage boys. I assure you this is no fun, and I wouldn’t in a million years consider acting on the attraction. But it does give me an angle from which to answer your question.

I have talked, in support group type settings, to a good number of other men who suffer from the same attraction I do – to the best of my knowledge, none of them have abused any boys. But nearly all of these men (probably about 80%) are also attracted to adult males. So it is clear, from my perspective, that men who are attracted to boys are more likely to be gay/bisexual than straight.

This is different from saying that gay men are likely to try to have sex with teenagers – which is not true. They may be slightly more likely than straight men to do such a thing, but I don’t think that this has anything to do with homosexuality per se; I think it’s just a relic of the fact that gay people are not likely to just be “rule followers” when it comes to sex. Historically, ALL gay sex has been forbidden – so gay men of the 1960s, for example, probably didn’t see sex with a 15-year-old as any more forbidden than sex with a 20-year-old. (And I assure you many straight men are sexually interested in some 15-year-old girls, even if they wouldn’t begin to consider acting on that interest.)

As for men in the priesthood, my sense is that these men were repressed, in the same way that (say) Jerry Sandusky was repressed. They were not willing to admit to themselves in a healthy and straightforward way that they found these boys attractive. They were psychologically dis-integrated, such that their desires controlled them. (Imagine the straight-laced Baptist boy telling himself insistently, “I don’t like alcohol” and then drinking it to excess every Friday night).

So in answer to your question, yes, something like what you suspect is the case, though it is by no means something that should make us suspicious of all gay people. Moreover, I don’t think the attraction to teens is associated with abuse of teens unless there is something else wrong, like some level of repression. People, in general, have the ability to be tempted to something without succumbing to that temptation – and this is no less true of people tempted by teenage boys than those who experience any other temptation.

 

[rinnie]

Ok. I have gotten into some debates with friends about celibacy and sex abuse. My secular humanist friends claim sex abuse in RCC was largely caused by celibacy and there would be significantly less of it, and more prompt exposure and reporting of it, if rule were done away with.

I countered that by saying most Catholic abuses cases are decades old, while pedophilia/sex abuse is a fairly common and well investigated crime by officers today.The majority of abusers are married men ( I think?) and even more importantly, pretty much all pedophiles arrested this year were men who took no vows of celibacy, and were not "sexually repressed " in any way. I work for a foster care advocacy center, and pretty much all the children I hear we represent who suffered physical/sexual abuse, were done so by famil/family friends, but not priests .

Yet part of me has doubts that celibacy did not cause any of this. In some big U.S cities, such as Los Angeles and Boston, the pedophiles composed 10% of the priesthood. There seems to have been rife sex abuse of children by many monks in Australia and Ireland, so much so that Irish Christian Brothers ( a once prominent and famous order of educational monks) is now pretty much extinct. I have even heard of cases of orders of monks funding the defense of their cofreres even after they have been indicted and sentenced for abuse. Is there any validity to my doubts/thoughts or is it just silliness?

Not even related to abuse, but why not let priests marry and date like everyone else? What is it to the hierarchy really if a priest just wants a girlfriend or a wife? Why must that be not allowed? I am curious…

Well lets begin this way. Trust me I have been personally attacked myself for being a Roman Catholic.

To begin with we never defend what a Priest did, if he hurt a Child he is a sick person, and will have to answer to God for what he did. I like the answer that Pope John Paul ll said.

He said may God have mercy on them, because I can’t. We don’t ever defend abuse, its wrong, its sick, and we have no defense for that.

Next why do RC Priests not get married. Its simple, when a Priest is called to be a Roman Catholic Priest they like St Paul choose this Rite to not marry and imitate Christ. How can a Roman Catholic Priest live without sex? Simple with help from the Holy Spirit, all things with God are possible. God called them to this discipline and they accepted it, and with his help it is possible.

IF a Man wants to be a Priest and marry they do not take Holy Orders for the Roman Rite. Its that simple. The Priest that honor the Roman Rite do so because that is the Rite God called them to enter. Simple as that. We don’t question God.

Last, Anyone who hurts a child is a sick person and being married or not makes no difference. If this were true why do married men hurt kids and abuse them. Look at the big mess at Penn State. If marriage were the answer what happened to Jerry!

So the answer is this, IF God calls a Man to enter into the Roman Rite and choose him and his Church over marriage, and he chooses out of his own free will to answer this call, who has the right to judge him.

The bible tells us we are all called by the Holy Spirit for different things. One a Mother, Father, others Nuns, Priests. Etc.

 

[rinnie]

You do only have one source though. Part of the problem I think is some priests knew about the abuse but did not disclose, for fear ( justifiably) of being fired or demoted by the bishop. I think though that was just the way some hierarchs liked it, keeping everything “in house” which is a terribly depressing thought.

What ever the true reason was, it was wrong. People tend to believe if Priests, or Bishops make mistakes it is the fault of the Church. IT is not.

Judas betrayed Jesus, did that make Jesus responsible for the sins of Judas. Just like today, Christ and his Church is not responsible for the mistakes of the Priests that betrayed Christ today.

Christ warned us, he told us to beware of a wolf wearing sheeps clothing. He knows the devil will try and continue to bring down his Church.

But Christ said the Church will prevail. We will suffer many trials. But the GATES OF HADE WILL NOT PREVAIL.

The devil will never bring down the RCC.

Sin causes sin. Fear causes sin. It was our own Pope John Paul ll by the way that lets the truth out. When he found out he was angry. It was him who said that the truth must come out and we must help these Children get help.

Its sad we have to pay for a crime that was caused, but someone has to. We will defend our Lord and our Church and suffer for the works of the devil. But what else could we do.? Turn our backs on the innocent who were hurt.

ITs not fair for us Roman Catholics who are judged for the sins of the Priests who betrayed God. But if Judas would do it while God was on this earth, what surpises people that it happens today also.

The RCC will always have evil people trying to bring it down. Why? Simple Christ gives free will to do good, and unfortunately you cannot have free will without being able to turn against God also and do evil.

The devil will continue to bring the the One True Church. God told us.

 

[schaeffer]

Some view from a non-Catholic

One, unless a church or group is requiring someone to perform criminal acts in order to be part of it, they can pretty much require whatever they want for membership if membership is by choice.

If a man doesn’t want to be celibate, he doesn’t need to be a priest. There are other ways to serve the Church. The Church doesn’t need to defend it’s celibacy requirement, or various other requirements no matter how pointless they may seem to anyone on the outside. If it’s not criminal and the people have the choice to leave the membership, then it’s their business.

Unfortunately there are people who prey on others sexually. It occurs everywhere and is criminal behavior and must be treated as such, the failure and criminal behavior of the church in knowingly allowing and covering up these crimes is reprehensible and without excuse. Period.

Humans will do what humans do, but when it is found out it must not be allowed to continue, nor should the criminals be protected from prosecution and consequences.

Men tend to be attracted to younger sex partners as a rule, though not necessarily to children. Many heterosexual men find teen girls extremely attractive, and that too is human nature. No adult should take advantage of a young person sexually, no matter how understandably attractive they are. It’s human nature to want what is attractive, no matter a person’s sexual proclivity.

Homosexual priests that choose to act out with other homosexual priests is an issue of discipline within the Church. It’s not a crime and the Church can deal with it as they choose, it’s consensual sex. The fact that there are homosexual priests does not mean those men will prey on boys and teens. Whether or not the Church wants to allow homosexual men to become priests is their own issue.

The fact that the priests who are pedophiles have more access to young boys, via altar servers makes such abuse more likely, because of availability, and there are probably men who are pedophiles and attracted to boys who go into priesthood with that intent in their minds. Similarly coaches…some of boys, some of girls, who see it as an opportunity to feed their desires. And it is not a matter of celibacy, but a matter of a person with certain sexual desires, who are willing to engage in criminal and heinous acts to satisfy those desires.

There are millions of homosexual and heterosexual people who are celibate who never abuse any other person sexually.

I will say this, word gets around. And the fact that the Church knowingly protected abusers, unfortunately gave others with that proclivity to act out boldly and for those with that proclivity to enter the priesthood with the idea that their deprived acts would be similarly tolerated and protected. The Church is culpable for creating and nurturing an atmosphere where such acts were allowed to continue, and there is no excuse or wiggle room on that.

If it had without failure, when such behavior became known, dealt swiftly and definitively with each perpetrator, both internally and submitting them to the legal system for their criminal acts, fewer men would have dared to act out, and fewer would have become priests with the idea that they could act out.

For those unspeakable failings, the Church is fully responsible.

celibacy isn’t the problem.

The military has terrible issues with sexual abuse (though not against minors) and they are the result of turning a blind eye and tolerance for criminal behavior, celibacy is not required in the military.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

For those unspeakable failings, the Church is fully responsible.

I believe the Church at last has taken full responsibility, and is cleaning out the stables even as we speak.