A
AlNg
Guest
Can you give us an example of a few cases, or even one case, where a married priest, either Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, has been accused of molesting a child?
- Status
G
graciew
Guest
Not married priests ,married men. That is what Georgias is saying. Examples, plenty.Unfortunately. Almost as an alibi in some cases…
G
Gorgias
Guest
A
AlNg
Guest
Can anyone give us a few examples, perhaps even one case, of a married priest, whether it be a Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox priest who has been accused of molesting a child?
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
There is an infamous paedophile here. He says he has done nothing wrong and doesn’t understand all the fuss. He will be in jail for life and is still coming up on fresh charges and fresh trials.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Doesn’t make it any less wrong does it
O
otjm
Guest
No, but in essence, it is irrelevant to the topic.
O
otjm
Guest
As I said before, you might actually want to read what I have written. My comments have been directed to the established fact that the great majority of sexual abuse of children in the Church has been by homosexual men abusing boys. And the vast majority of that has been with post-pubescent boys, and is typical of a subset of the homosexual population of men.
The vast majority of married men are not homosexual. While sexual abuse of teenage boys occurs in families, it is almost always by a family friend or other family member.
Your comments are not only argumentative, they also are not factually based. Sexual abuse of their children by married men is with their post-pubescent daughters, with a small minority who are actual pedophiles - that is, who abuse prepubescent children, and who will bail from their victim at the first sign of pubic hair. As such, they are a separate subset of abusers.
The vast majority of married men are not homosexual. While sexual abuse of teenage boys occurs in families, it is almost always by a family friend or other family member.
Your comments are not only argumentative, they also are not factually based. Sexual abuse of their children by married men is with their post-pubescent daughters, with a small minority who are actual pedophiles - that is, who abuse prepubescent children, and who will bail from their victim at the first sign of pubic hair. As such, they are a separate subset of abusers.
T
twf
Guest
Have there been widespread investigations into the Orthodox Church? No one thought it was an issue in the Catholic Church either prior to 2002. There is NO evidence that abuse is more widespread in the Catholic Church than elsewhere. In fact, from what I’ve read, abuse is more likely in public schools. The real scandal is the cover up in the Catholic Church for which there is no excuse.
Married men abuse children. Marriage neither makes nor heals a pedophile.
Married men abuse children. Marriage neither makes nor heals a pedophile.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I have seen that, and I’ve responded to your suggestion that unmarried men are the ones who abuse. You might want to actually read what I’ve written.
The vast majority of homosexual men do not abuse young teens.
Here’s the problem with your thesis (and I get it that others make the claims you’re making, but I find their claims deficient, too): you’re pegging this as a ‘homosexual’ crisis, and that’s as invalid a claim as calling this a “Catholic crisis”. A small minority of priests have abused, and others besides priests abuse in this way. SImiliarly, a small minority of celibate homosexuals have abused, and others besides celibate homosexuals abuse in this way.
Therefore, to characterize it as a ‘homosexual’ issue, while a tidy way to label it, is to mischaracterize it. As the (mangled) quote goes, “there’s an easy solution to every human problem – neat, plausible, and wrong.”
Hold on a second – you’re moving the goal-posts! (Little wonder I seem ‘argumentative’ in the face of such tactics!) You’ve just changed my assertion (“married men abuse, too”) into “fathers abuse their children.” You claim that I don’t read your posts – pot, meet kettle!
My claim isn’t about father-child abuse, but about abuse by married men. If you want to build up a straw man and knock it down, do it on your own time – that approach doesn’t fly here.
Last edited:
K
KJW5551
Guest
@Gorgias no offense, but what would you say about the problems in our seminaries? There are no children there, just “widespread misconduct” i.e. homosexual behavior.
It’s at least an element of this situation and I think we’d do well to acknowledge that instead of deny it.
It’s at least an element of this situation and I think we’d do well to acknowledge that instead of deny it.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
That’s where it starts. It’s the common denominator. Clear the filth out of there!
O
otjm
Guest
Your ignorance of the issues is a bit… interesting. I am going to leave it at that; and I have no further interest in responding to you.
You are incorrect in your comment that the vast majority of homosexual men do not engage in sexual contact with boys; I would agree that the majority may not, but there is a tremendous lack of knowledge on your part as to the issues. Arguing with you is not worth the effort; you are now on ignore.
You are incorrect in your comment that the vast majority of homosexual men do not engage in sexual contact with boys; I would agree that the majority may not, but there is a tremendous lack of knowledge on your part as to the issues. Arguing with you is not worth the effort; you are now on ignore.
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, I would say that it’s important to distinguish between “homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual activity” and “desire to have sex with minors.” Each of these is distinct from the others. Therefore, we have to ask three distinct questions regarding “problems in our seminaries”. In fact, we have to ask not only about seminaries, but prevailing attitudes in society and ways of addressing each of these questions.
With respect to “homosexual tendencies”, we see an interesting dynamic. Prior to the 1960s-70s, I’d assert, there was no discussion of these questions in “polite society.” This is just something that wasn’t discussed. With respect to Church teaching, “tendencies” weren’t part of the question; “sinful behavior” was. So, the situation in the seminaries is a topic that would take a lot of time to unpack. We’d have to talk about affective maturity, the development of healthy sexualities in the context of chaste celibacy, existing dynamics in seminaries and “submarine cultures”, and many other issues. Let’s just say that the notion of addressing “homosexual tendencies” in healthy ways wasn’t then what it is today.
What about “homosexual activity”, then? Well, I’d still say that we were a closeted society, both in the culture at large and in seminaries in particular. Heck… we all went nuts in the 80’s when Billy Crystal played a gay man in the sitcom ‘Soap’ – do you think there was a national discussion of what it meant for men to act on homosexual tendencies back then? Of course not! But, by then, we had gone through the “sexual revolution”, which led to widespread changes in the way we reacted to sexual activity outside of marriage. From what I’ve read, there were ‘underground’ communities of homosexuals in seminaries. (Even into the 1980s, ordination was a ‘respectable’ way for a man to be part of polite society without being married. But, that put his formative years in an environment with other closeted seminarians. Not. Healthy. Formation.)
The literature is rife with anecdotes of ‘hotbeds’ of homosexual activity in the seminary, through the 90s. The Church, I would claim, has already addressed this dynamic, in its statements asserting that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” should not be admitted to seminary. It is well on the way to isolating and eliminating these environments in seminary (at least in the U.S. (?)).
Continued…
G
Gorgias
Guest
Continuing…
Note that I haven’t addressed the problem of those who have inclinations toward the sexual abuse of minors. I think I’d say that, based on the experiences of the 90s, as well as the procedures and processes implemented in 2002 and beyond, we are well-positioned to identify those who might be at risk of exhibiting these behaviors. Will we keep each and every potential offender out of our seminaries and parishes? Not likely. But, I think, we will put an end to serial abuse that runs years or decades.
These procedures will, as well, address the other issues of sexualities and behaviors that run counter to the Church’s desire to form men for a life of chaste celibacy. If I had to grade the Church, based on what I’ve read and observed, I’d give us a solid “in progress”, with the note “making good headway.”
Does that address your question?
Note that I haven’t addressed the problem of those who have inclinations toward the sexual abuse of minors. I think I’d say that, based on the experiences of the 90s, as well as the procedures and processes implemented in 2002 and beyond, we are well-positioned to identify those who might be at risk of exhibiting these behaviors. Will we keep each and every potential offender out of our seminaries and parishes? Not likely. But, I think, we will put an end to serial abuse that runs years or decades.
These procedures will, as well, address the other issues of sexualities and behaviors that run counter to the Church’s desire to form men for a life of chaste celibacy. If I had to grade the Church, based on what I’ve read and observed, I’d give us a solid “in progress”, with the note “making good headway.”
Does that address your question?
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s a shame you’re willing to make claims but “have no interest” in backing them up.
So… you agree with me, but would quibble the numbers. Interesting.
Apparently, since you seem to have neither data nor interest to back up your claims.
K
KJW5551
Guest
Sorry I should have been more specific. I’m not referring to Pennsylvania or to historic child abuse at all; I’m referring to the present day crisis of (reported) widespread homosexual activity in seminaries such as in Honduras, Chile, St. John’s in Boston, Maynooth in Ireland last year, etc. Seminarians on gay dating apps, seminarians being preyed upon sexually by the very men tasked with teaching them the faith, it’s all very astonishing.
I’d argue that with everything in the news lately it seems like the Church has not adequately addressed this dynamic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I would say that they need to embark on the kinds of reforms that seminaries in the U.S. have embraced over the past 20 years or so.
You’re right – I am approaching this from a parochial, U.S.-centric position…
K
KJW5551
Guest
I’m U.S. too, but even here we’ve got two open investigations (Boston and Lincoln). I think it’s a work in progress at best…
R
RobertAdams
Guest
Hello Gorgias. Thanks for calling me cute
I think there are roughly four “situations” here:
1)Cardinal McCarrick preyed on seminarians and younger priests
2)Some in the church were complicit in keeping this as an “open secret”
3)A number of priests sexually abused minors
4)This was covered up
I don’t think ordaining married men will be the solution to any of the above situations, but I disagree with your argument that it would not help address them. I think some other posters have given you reasonable arguments as to why this might be the case.
It’s worth noting that I’m not suggesting that all priests be married, or attempting to malign celibacy itself. Should married men be ordained there will also be continue to be priests who choose celibacy, and religious orders that maintain it as a discipline.
It would simply be returning to the practice of Christ himself, who held celibacy as the ideal, but also ordained married men.
I think an infusion of mature men, who serve as models of a healthy active sexuality with women (i.e. their wives) would be a helpful part of a multifaced response. I would guess that the Church will sadly never be completely free of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that married men would introduce a few new types of “scandal.” However, I think it would be an over all positive step.
- Status