Ohio Priest Arrested on Sex Trafficking Charges

[goout]

I have a cop friend who works in the vice department. A lot, or even most men who are arrested for soliciting prostitutes are married men.

Again, marriage does not cure anyone of a sexual disorder.

Since you are of the mindset that forced celibacy can lead to crimes, why don’t we just go ahead and arrest all single men of marriageable age, not just priests, and put them in jail. It’s just a matter of time before they give into the urge to commit sexual assault brought about by celibacy and the lack of a sexual scratching post, aka, a wife.

This viewpoint that celibacy cause sexual disorder manages to denigrate both men and women, as well as contradict the teaching of Jesus himself that properly ordered celibacy is a good thing.

These are red herrings.
What are the characteristics of clerical culture, as we know it?

virtual $20 for the first person with the courage to simply spell out the various factors that make up clerical culture. Please don’t say anything negative about any of them.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Religious Sexual Assault Lawyers in California | Joseph George Jr.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/us/southern-baptist-abuse/index.html

Hundreds Accuse Independent Baptist Pastors of Abuse...... | News & Reporting | Christianity Today

Is there more sexual abuse in the Protestant Churches than the Catholic Church?

It is extremely hard to know the exact rates of child sexual abuse in any institution, especially since it takes survivors, on average 21 years before they start talking about their abuse*. But churches, like all other corporate entities that work with the public, have insurance, and there are only a few insurance providers who insure churches. These three companies, in 2007, said they receive about 260 reports of sexual abuse per year from Protestant churches, and about 228 from Catholic churches.

http://www.awkwardmomentsbible.com/shocking-pastors-on-the-prowl/

Should i continue?

 

[stpurl]

A priest stands ‘in alter Christus’ when he celebrates Mass. Or are you saying that say Baptist pastors or other religious are not to be held to an equally high standard?

Or how about teachers? Teachers stand in place of parents, and parents are supposed to be held to the highest standards when it comes to care of their children, are they not?

Yet the highest level of abuse of children is from their own parents. And one of the highest levels of abuse of children comes from their teachers.

No one is saying that a priest’s abuse of a child should be ‘more excusable’ than another person’s. However, in the same breath that you assign to them a ‘higher standard’, you appear to ignore the equally high standards that should be assigned to parents and teachers, not to mention other religious.

And once again, by that kind of myopia you are ignoring the root causes of sexual abuse in an attempt to make it ‘all about religion’ or all about “Catholics’.

 

[stpurl]

I believe that I asked you to define clerical culture since you were making an issue of it.

Could you please answer how you define clerical culture as you were making a number of implications regarding it, without ever defining it?

 

[Sarcelle]

These are red herrings.
What are the characteristics of clerical culture, as we know it?

I was responding to the assertion that priestly celibacy is the cause of sexual abuse.

I said nothing about clerical culture.

What is clerical culture as you define it?

Come on, tell us. You are the one making an issue of it yet expecting us to know what you mean.

We can’t read your mind so let’s just cut to the chase and tell us,

 

[OraLabora]

Celibacy is not the root cause.

I don’t disagree, but it seriously needs to be considered part of any rational attempt to find the root cause. Not because it causes priests to abuse, but perhaps because it influences the wrong kind of candidate to be attracted to the priesthood.

We need to leave no stone unturned, and I would suggest even a serious examination of the influence Church’s sexual teaching needs to be considered. The rot has been around for a very long time; just today I was reading that a class-action lawsuit is being launched against the Archdiocese of Québec for abuse that goes back to the 1940s, one of the victims interviewed is 80 y.o. and was abused as a minor; this is not something you can blame on the “sexual revolution”. And it goes to the top echelons in the Church as we discovered with two cardinals abusing young seminarians. It runs far, wide, and deep. A superficial analysis will not lead to meaningful results.

 

[stpurl]

Considered how, exactly?

As science itself tells us, celibacy is not linked to sexual abuse any more than sexual activity (i.e. marriage/fornication/adultery) is linked to sexual abuse.

Those individuals in the priesthood who engaged in sexual abuse did not do so because they were ‘trapped by celibacy’, or ‘warped by celibacy’.

Celibacy is not something which is ‘imposed’ on priests. It is a free choice which they make.

So why is it even considered?

The majority of people who engage in sexual abuse of the type that is most often attributed to Catholic priests —that is, abuse of young males—are themselves married men.

Again I ask you, why bring ‘celibacy’ into the mix at all?

We know that sexual abuse occurs ‘across the board’ and that, again, the types of abuses that are most ‘thrown at’ Catholic priests are engaged in, at rates equal to or greater than said priests, are engaged in by married males.

We also know that sexual abuse which is ‘less often’ spoken of, such as males abusing females, again occurs more often in married people.

So if abuses occur among people who have heterosexual, married sex and also Occur among those who ‘do not have sex’ and also Occur among those who have homosexual sex, and the rates are greater Among the homosexual and heterosexual married sex crowds, but do still exist among those who are celibate, then addressing ‘celibacy’ and ignoring the other groups is pretty pointless, isn’t it?

Unless you’re trying to say that, hmm, in a group which chooses celibacy, some of the people ‘break the rule” just as with marriage, some ‘break the rule’ through fornication or adultery?

In which case we don’t decide to throw marriage out because some people ‘don’t obey the vows they freely made’. . .

And we don’t then throw out celibacy because some people ‘don’t obey the vows they freely made’.

And we find that, surprise surprise, it is not celibacy or marriage, it is not ‘sex’ or ‘lack of sex’ which is causing all the abuses. . .

It is plain, simple disobedience. Pride, greed, and selfishness.

IOW, it is choosing to sin due to a whole host of ‘inclinations’ depending on the person himself (or herself, to address the woman who chooses sexual sin).

Who knows what may have influenced a youngish Catholic priest who freely chose and meant to adhere to his vow of celibacy? Is this young man, like so many modern youth, overly emotional? Easily led? Was he and is he surrounded by other young men who try to bully or entice him into sin? NONE of which, again, has anything to do with celibacy?

We should again be trying to find the root cause and again, I say the cause is far closer to a culture of disobedience and disorder. We have had generations now of people who have been endlessly groomed and swayed through media, family, and indeed ‘trusted experts and leaders’ into seeking their own wishes at all costs and rationalizing or excusing any bad behavior as ‘someone else’s fault’ or problem.

Celibacy has nothing to do with that.

 

[OraLabora]

Those individuals in the priesthood who engaged in sexual abuse did not do so because they were ‘trapped by celibacy’, or ‘warped by celibacy’.

Celibacy is not something which is ‘imposed’ on priests. It is a free choice which they make.

So why is it even considered?

You completely missed my point, and the point made by others in this discussion.

We are not saying celibacy directly causes abuse. I am suggesting it is a factor to examine as something that attracts the wrong kind of candidate: the one who is either already an abuser, or hardwired to become one, or the one with an unbalanced or immature sexuality.

I’m not even suggesting that even these are true. I’m merely suggesting they be studied. Finding the root cause cannot be taken seriously without seriously examining all factors, including celibacy and the processes of selection and formation.

As for celibacy being freely chosen, yes it is. I freely chose to get married, but I was certainly naive about how hard marriage and parenting would be. At least I have a spouse to share the burden. Many priests lead very lonely lives. The Communauté Saint Martin in France trains very holy priests for parishes, but insists on sending a minimum of two priests to each parish it staffs to help alleviate the loneliness but also to keep an eye on each other for signs of trouble.

I suspect that the combination of celibacy and loneliness is a tough burden. If you throw sexual immaturity into the mix, I think there could be a problem. It needs to be seriously looked at.

 

[stpurl]

I see your point regarding immaturity (the emotionalism I also spoke of). However, the main point I believe remains the same.

It appears —and you can correct me if I’m wrong—that you are saying that celibacy ‘attracts the wrong kind of person’.

And I’m not sure how that could be, exactly.

Nor would it be the case, if that were indeed so, that allowing ‘married priests’ would somehow ‘attract the right person since we know that neither sex nor lack of sex truly has anything to do with a person’s choosing to sexually abuse another person, except that all things considered, it is usually married men who abuse *younger men that is, the group so often spoken of as the victims of ‘pedophile priests.

So if we are trying to bring down ‘the wrong kind of people’ and lessen abuse, having married instead of celibate clergy would not rectify the problem and would in fact make it worse.

 

[MNathaniel]

We are not saying celibacy directly causes abuse. I am suggesting it is a factor to examine as something that attracts the wrong kind of candidate

I agree with this, actually.

That motive is among the very important things to be examined in all potential priestly candidates.

Because it does seem at least hypothetically possible that there are individuals who consider themselves effectively excluded from, or unlikely to succeed in, other vocations — and they try to pursue the priesthood as a path to a publicly legitimate ‘vocation’.

I hope the seminaries have already internalized this lesson or are at least taking it ever more seriously, and I’d agree with seeking some way to be rigorous in examining this (again, if not already being applied across the board). To make sure candidates don’t have, as you put it, an unbalanced or immature sexuality, or a twisted motive for pursuing a celibate path. Because if there is underlying sexual immaturity or a twisted motive, chances are that’ll eventually bubble up in unfortunate ways.

 

[AlNg]

I suspect that the combination of celibacy and loneliness is a tough burden. If you throw sexual immaturity into the mix, I think there could be a problem. It needs to be seriously looked at.

Correct. As Cardinal Roger Mahony said: “The Eastern Catholic churches have always had a married priesthood, and it works out fine,” he said. “So I think it should be discussed.”
And as Cardinal Law has said: celibacy is an issue that “simply will not disappear.”

 

[stpurl]

Further, are you saying that ‘loneliness’ is something that married people never deal with? Ah hardy har, all of us, whether married or single, deal with loneliness.

 

[stpurl]

The Eastern Catholics also have an entirely different background and culture. Their parishes are much smaller. In many cases they are also culturally homogenous, far more so than the average Latin parish. So in addition to having people who are themselves of the same cultural and ethnic heritage, those people also have a centuries’ old tradition, in their small parishes, as opposed to the Latins whose heritage is that of large, ethnically diverse parishes often themselves with a fairly ‘short’ history, and on top of that all, Eastern Catholics have not had the liturgical ‘tampering’ that the Latins did.

 

[MNathaniel]

are you saying that ‘loneliness’ is something that married people never deal with? Ah hardy har, all of us, whether married or single, deal with loneliness.

I mean…

I would suggest that even other kinds of celibates talk about this. Nuns, monks. Celibacy does involve a particular kind of loneliness different from most married life.

I understand the concept of being ‘lonely in relationship’ — I’ve been there and yes, it’s painful. And at the same time… I’d draw a distinction between the kind of loneliness when there’s another human physically in the room with you, and the kind of loneliness when you literally go alone into a cell every night.

I think on all sides of this conversation we can probably acknowledge that human touch and at least minimal companionship and support in daily life activities, is a longing that (most) married couples have met by one another to some degree, and many celibates, well, don’t.

Which is not to say the celibate is inherently lonely in a crippling way: they do have God and can often have strong friendships or community, and perhaps physical contact at the level of a hug. And they hopefully find (if they’re living their vocation well) that they go most of the time without feeling lonely.

But marriage is a natural good for everyone, and the celibate genuinely is sacrificing something real when they sacrifice it. I think a certain kind of loneliness may well be part of the celibate experience.

 

[Victoria33]

There are a lot of problems in society, look at the Boy Scouts.

 

[AlNg]

Eastern Catholics have not had the liturgical ‘tampering’ that the Latins did.

Do you agree that the liturgical tampering was a good thing since it brought the liturgy back to earlier times in the Catholic Church? Or do you believe that the Eastern Orthodox liturgy is preferable since it has not been tampered with?

 

[stpurl]

The thing is, celibacy IS giving up something. And yes, it is lonely. Those of us who are celibate widows/widowers for example can be celibate for decades. Even if we have family members to care for. But I don’t believe that it should be looked at as a ‘disadvantage’ to Catholic priests or that promoting marriage is going to somehow magically stop sexual abuse among priests.

And that DOES seem to be why most people are fighting celibacy; the idea that it is ‘too much’ to ask of a person.

It is another example, and we have had far too many in the last decades, of trying to make it ‘easier’ for people with the expectation that it would lead to people being able to live their Catholic lives more happily and fully, and which instead has led to people leaving the faith, or become lukewarm and lackadaisical.

Sacrifice has been made into a bad word, I’d almost say a sin except ‘sin’ as an offense against GOD is not even a concept to most Catholics today; sin is only something that happens when you aren’t tolerant and nice to another PERSON. God has nothing to do with it!

But we still have some areas where sacrifice is acceptable. We’re allowed to give up meat to ‘save the planet’. Environmental sacrifice is about the only thing sanctioned today. Mothers no longer sacrifice for their children or husbands for their wives, or vice versa. It’s not surprising that celibacy is looked on as a medieval throwback that causes abuse.

It’s not surprising that we’ve been conditioned to think this—but it’s still wrong.

 

[stpurl]

No, I’m not a false antiquarian. I do find the liturgy of the Maronite Church beautiful (that one I am most familiar with). However that liturgy is not ‘set in amber’ either. It grew and developed organically, and changes that occurred also were organic developments.

Do you believe that the Maronite and Melkite and Byzantine liturgies are ‘more like what occurred in the Early Church?” How early?

 

[MNathaniel]

Oh, I’m agreed with you that celibacy doesn’t cause sexual abuse.

I might’ve misread your comment then or jumped in without understanding context. I just saw the comment about loneliness and did want to make a note that celibacy involves a certain kind of loneliness, when compared to marriage, that we can’t pretend it doesn’t.

But as you say, this loneliness is shared with the widow and widower, and single person, etc. Perhaps the only difference being that one is free to pursue a romantic relationship if one hasn’t consecrated oneself to celibate life, but in the meantime, a single person like myself essentially does live out celibacy, and we don’t sexually abuse others because of it.

And of course if a priest or religious truly couldn’t bear the celibacy and wanted to marry, they could seek a dispensation for that.

There’s never an excuse for abuse.

 

[OraLabora]

It appears —and you can correct me if I’m wrong—that you are saying that celibacy ‘attracts the wrong kind of person’.

I’ll correct you because I left out the word may, as in may attract the wrong kind of candidate. It also may not, but it at least needs to be examined. My bad for the omission.

Further, are you saying that ‘loneliness’ is something that married people never deal with? Ah hardy har, all of us, whether married or single, deal with loneliness.

I’ve been married 32 years and agree. It has been mostly transient though, at least in my case. Spouses aren’t always on the same wavelength.

I was discussing priestly celibacy recently with a monk in the context of a postulant who decided to try for the secular priesthood instead, out of fear of loneliness. The monk wisely noted that he will face much more loneliness having to cover a couple of parishes while living alone. The monks have community and a surprising amount of camaraderie that comes from working shoulder to shoulder while making the monastery function and earn its keep.

I could see his point: I lived and worked at the abbey for a month just before the pandemic hit. I didn’t mind at all being alone in cell at the end of the day. I was busy working with three other librarians during the day. It was a nice balance of solitude and interacting with others whom I have grown very fond of.