Pedophile Priests Pedophilia Crisis And The Rest of the Story

[Benadam]

Or c) the kind of sexual predators we had in the priesthood do what they do more out of desire for power and domination than for the kind of sexual pleasure sought from consentual sex. Such predators a known to look for easy prey. I still don’t believe it is “ridiculous” to consider the fact that boys were far easier prey than girls for predator priests.

These guys just might be sicker than you imagine so far. I’m glad your mind isn’t warped enough to think this way! Everything I’ve ever heard about rape (of which minor abuse is a variety) says it is more about power than regular lust.

I think a much larger percentage of the victims would have to be preteens for this to be true. With such a large percentage of teenage boys as the victim the root of the problem wasn’t the power sought by pedophiles. pedophile lacks the self esteem to relate to adults and teenage boys are too close to adulthood to be a gratifying target.

 

[manualman]

On the other hand, I can see where it was true not so long ago that men who felt strong attractions to males would gravitate to the priesthood, not so much as a “front” while practicing the sin, but rather because it was a highly respectable way to “pass” (i.e., explain one’s seeming lack of interest in women) in a society where being openly homosexual had major consequences.

Hi Don,

JR is quite a holy believer when you read him enough. He’s proven me wrong when I got hot headed not a few times!

I think this is close, but not quite. I don’t know about you, but I took discernment very seriously and it is HARD to know if you are called. But for a heterosexual man, that call means we have to give up something VERY appealing to accept a call to priesthood. This tends to be an acid test of one’s call - if you are willing to give that up, it says something strong. But for a sincere believer with an SSA, how much harder it becomes to figure it out. The SSA guy already HAS no marital option, he isn’t called to sacrifice it to be a priest. IMO, this must make it nearly impossible to tell God’s call from circumstance.

 

[Don_Schneider]

The problem with this theory is bolded above. The abuse cases in the US were not primarily in institutions of men “confined in close quarters with one another, in the absence of women.” They were in parishes with both boys and girls. It also assumes that the past cases of buggery you mentioned were equal opportunity sexual predators with confined access, as opposed to homosexually-oriented predators with better access.

So, back to the abuse issue in parishes instead of institutions… While access *may *have been easier for a homosexually-oriented predator, to assume that access was the key would seem to imply that either:

a) The predators had a bi-sexual predilection.
or
b) The number of abuse cases would have been at least double, if the heterosexually-oriented predators had better access to teenage girls.

I don’t see evidence to support either assumption.

Dear Robert,

Well, I did state I lean towards my second interpretation more than the first. I just noted that the first might have played at least a small part as to why the victims were so disproportionately boys. I realize that we are not discussing physical isolation here. My point was that it was far easier for non-family adult men to concoct reasons to spend time with boys than with girls which, given the tenor of the times, “just didn’t look right.” Therefore, the isolation was not physical, but rather social.

There are some religious sects that I consider to be cults even though they do not physically isolate members or even new initiates. Rather, they demand so much of their members’ time, and so discourage (if not absolutely forbid) personal relationships outside the sect, that it might as well be physical isolation in regard to indoctrination. This analogy is what I had in mind. Perhaps pedophiles who might be attracted to boys or girls are forced into the direction of boys due to social isolation from girls.

Nevertheless, it’s rather a moot point as my second interpretation is the one I more heavily lean towards and suspect explains the bulk of the problem. I wonder if you have any thoughts about that, which you did not address in your response.

Thank you.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

A heterosexual man, a man with a natural response to sexual stimuli, will not become an opportunist taking advantage of young men to satisfy his urge for an adult woman. It doesn’t fit the psychology of sexual attraction. Even male heterosexual prisoners who would rather have sex with a woman find a man who pretends to be one and then when they get out they still want a woman. Deprivation doesn’t generally change what a person responds to sexually.

This was most definitely a problem of same sex attraction within the Priesthood. Many men hoping to ‘bury’ their same sex attraction by becoming a Priest found they had entered a most dangerous environment. An all male community. How about listening to confessions? Not the place for healing same sex attraction.

Then there arose a subculture of homosexual Priests who actively worked to make their culture a dominant force. They sought out homosexual males to become Priests. They protected their own and even dominated seminaries. For a time traditional minded men in the seminary had to do what they called ‘submarining’ in order to get ordained. They had to hide their loyalty to traditional teaching.

This was most definitely a problem with Priests who were sexually attracted to males.

Your analysis does seem to have validity. I worked as a social worker for a time and saw similar patterns with some of the clients; a few of whom were in prison and often would make it clear that their sexual experiences while confined did not reflect their real sexual attraction.
My thoughts seem to take a slightly different tack. Some of the priests I have to assume joined the priesthood to escape their inclination and failed in that attempt. It would therefore appear that your ideas do have a ring of truth to them…at least to me.

 

[manualman]

I think a much larger percentage of the victims would have to be preteens for this to be true. With such a large percentage of teenage boys as the victim the root of the problem wasn’t the power sought by pedophiles. pedophile lacks the self esteem to relate to adults and teenage boys are too close to adulthood to be a gratifying target.

I don’t have the demographics handy. Weren’t the bulk of the victims around 12 to 14? Surely that’s not too close to adult to be easily dominated? I don’t recall very many 16 and 17 year olds mentioned.

 

[Benadam]

I don’t have the demographics handy. Weren’t the bulk of the victims around 12 to 14? Surely that’s not too close to adult to be easily dominated? I don’t recall very many 16 and 17 year olds mentioned.

12 to 14 is old for a pedophile. A pedophile targets kids that are vulnerable to suggestion and a child who has developed the ability to reason presents a hurdle to overcome in their quest for power over another human being.

 

[rlg94086]

Nevertheless, it’s rather a moot point as my second interpretation is the one I more heavily lean towards and suspect explains the bulk of the problem. I wonder if you have any thoughts about that, which you did not address in your response.

Thank you.

My apologies Don. I did see that you mentioned leaning toward the second, and I should have acknowledged that in my post. I didn’t respond to the second because we are in agreement. I just wanted to address the area of disagreement.

One thing I would add to your comments is that I don’t think that the Church realized that deep-seated homosexual tendencies were as big a difficulty as she now knows it to be. Earlier in the thread, I posted this link to the document regarding discernment of homosexually-oriented candidates to the priesthood issued in 2005.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Also, one of the things that exacerbated the abuse issue was the reassignment of the abusers. In many cases, they had them meet with a psychologist after a reported incident. Once they got the green light from the psychologist, they were put back into a pastoral position. Obviously, this did not work out.

 

[Benadam]

Your analysis does seem to have validity. I worked as a social worker for a time and saw similar patterns with some of the clients; a few of whom were in prison and often would make it clear that their sexual experiences while confined did not reflect their real sexual attraction.
My thoughts seem to take a slightly different tack. Some of the priests I have to assume joined the priesthood to escape their inclination and failed in that attempt. It would therefore appear that your ideas do have a ring of truth to them…at least to me.

I was following this issue back in the early nineties. There were several catholic journalists attempting to break the hold that the homosexual subculture had. Most of my info is from memory reading the articles written by those journalists. They covered the issue from every angle. A publication with the courage to confront the issue head on back then was the Wanderer.

 

[Ockham]

Not all Arabs are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Arab. Islam has a terrorist problem (they just won’t admit it). Likewise, not all gays are child molesters, but the vast majority of priest-abusers were. Therefore we had a gay problem. Another problem we had was the bizarre notion that the best course of action was to transfer the abuser. The thinking back then was the priest was stressed, needed a sebatical and relocation. That’s what you get for listening to new age psychologists.

 

[Benadam]

Not all Arabs are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Arab. Islam has a terrorist problem (they just won’t admit it). Likewise, not all gays are child molesters, but the vast majority of priest-abusers were. Therefore we had a gay problem. Another problem we had was the bizarre notion that the best course of action was to transfer the abuser. The thinking back then was the priest was stressed, needed a sebatical and relocation. That’s what you get for listening to new age psychologists.

So true. It seemed the secular wind carried off the entire clergy. When psychologists were the new ecclesia teaching that you can talk a healing. Funny in the OT one of the prophets laments They are obsessed with the cause of their sin"

 

[Ronsatron]

OK, I’ll bite. IF this had happened or IF that had happened what IF?

But the fact is that it was not an ‘IF’ but a reality that the scandal happened not because of an ‘IF’ but because of a fact. The fact is that it was not a heterosexual or generic abuse issue but actually about gay abusers whose homosexuality was the seed that grew to a point where they came to ignore their holy vows and were driven to satisfy their lustful and sinful needs.

Are homosexuals the more likely to inflict sexual abuse upon a boy than a heterosexual male? YES they are! Waffle if you like but for me putting the fox in the henhouse is not only evil but a conditional approval of a possible sexual ACT. You may wish to create an illusion rather than face the facts of the issue but I will never accept that a homosexual male in a position of authority of priesthood should ever be allowed to be a priest having influence on boys or for that matter any vunerable child.

Let us not dust over this as if a rather mundane semantic but make sure that this never happens again. The only defense I can see is to make sure we know who in the first place has an ‘inclination’ to abuse children and if that means denying homosexuals whether they are active or inactive from the priesthood then I vote AYE. I would offer the same critism of any heterosexual inclined to abuse as well although this issue we discuss is dealing with ‘priest pedophilia’ and not any of the other misgivings we might deal with by others whether priests or lay persons.

Hi Diane,

My post was not intending to wind anyone up, or to be a ‘waffle’. It was just a discussion on the label and the outcome of the scandal. We obviously differ on the opinion on what shoud be done about it, but that is OK by me. I don’t think that all gay people have an inclination to sexually abuse people, or that because of the actions of abusers all gay people suffer as a result.
I hope you dont feel you need to ‘bite’ with this reply or take it as a wind up.

Regards.

 

[manualman]

1. Not all Arabs are terrorists, but the vast majority of terrorists are Arab. Islam has a terrorist problem (they just won’t admit it). Likewise, not all gays are child molesters, but the vast majority of priest-abusers were. Therefore we had a gay problem.
2. Another problem we had was the bizarre notion that the best course of action was to transfer the abuser. The thinking back then was the priest was stressed, needed a sebatical and relocation. That’s what you get for listening to new age psychologists.

1. Ah, other examples ARE instructive. So by this reasoning, New York and Washington DC had an ARAB problem on September 11, 2001? Is that really what you are meaning to say? I hope not. I call it a terrorism problem. It certainly is related to a twisted version of the Islamic/Arabic culture. But calling it an “Arab problem” is unfair and abusive to the Jordanian muslim fellow who works in my building and is as decent a human being as any of us here. Unfair labels are simply not helpful. It is a very similar injustice to say that the priest abuse crisis was a “gay problem.” Such a label is horribly unfair to decent human beings who happen to suffer from an SSA through no fault of their own.
2. Here we agree entirely. And it is a tragic flaw in most of the US bishops in my lifetime. They seem afraid to excercise actual leadership and have abrogated their responsibilities to secular “experts” in many more areas than just psychology. Education comes to mind…

 

[joe_clark]

Any sexual predication upon a child by an adult is pedophilia whether involving a heterosexual or a homosexual. A homosexual can defer it to the hetero community but that is simply ‘them, not us’ cover for themselves. I agree that it should have been referred to as a homosexual scandal since most involved male priests upon male students.

Perhaps what also should be stated is that only about 2% of the priesthood were involved and that does include those committing the acts and those who ignored and/or hid the issue whom I feel should be held equally responsible.

The first part is probably the most accurate," Any sexual predication upon a child by an adult is pedophilia whether involving a heterosexual or a homosexual"., but for some unknown reason, it always seems to curve-ball away and blame is squarely fixed : “referred to as a homosexual scandal” "There’s more of THEM doing it… than US? Is it because it involves church personel?

I am a married man with children, but I am not deluded into believing that the Pedophile scandal is a homosexual scandal. It is not. There is a weak attempt to guide it there, but evil does not know gender, color or creed. Evil comes in all forms shapes and sizes to include but limited to Homosexual or Heterosexual. I am not pro-MO, but more I do not appreciate people thinking they can get over. People are educated today and because I say it enough, won’t fly like it did in the 60’s.

Blame is used and placed as a diversionary, evasive tatic to minimize guilt in an attempt to live with ourselves? Why? I believe the “them not us” is used because the thought that straight male and females can sexually abuse children makes us all vunerable, and that scares moms and dads, and that would be correct.

If you are a parent or care about children, be always on your guard because pedophiles are male and female, straight or gay, heteroseual and homosexual. I believe this diversion to make people believe that this is more about the pedophilia in the church is done more by homosexuals is dangerous and can lead people into a false sense of security allowing some people to let their guard down on people presenting themselves as Straight and Heterosexual. Can this person harm my child and sexually abuse them…and the anser is Yes.

This is the truth some seek to avoid and is a form of sticking your head in the sand, which can be dangerous to your children’s well being.:

 

[rlg94086]

Blame is used and placed as a diversionary, evasive tatic to minimize guilt in an attempt to live with ourselves? Why? I believe the “them not us” is used because the thought that straight male and females can sexually abuse children makes us all vunerable, and that scares moms and dads, and that would be correct.

If you are a parent or care about children, be always on your guard because pedophiles are male and female, straight or gay, heteroseual and homosexual. I believe this diversion to make people believe that this is more about the pedophilia in the church is done more by homosexuals is dangerous and can lead people into a false sense of security allowing some people to let their guard down on people presenting themselves as Straight and Heterosexual. Can this person harm my child and sexually abuse them…and the anser is Yes.

This is the truth some seek to avoid and is a form of sticking your head in the sand, which can be dangerous to your children’s well being.:

I haven’t seen anyone make the claim that children are safer with heterosexual priests, so your argument is a straw man.

The reason for the focus on homosexuals in the priesthood is that 80% of the cases were homosexually-oriented abuse of teens (not prepubescent children). The interest is to solve the problem, which is why the discernment guidelines were changed. I think the danger is sticking your head in the sand and calling these cases pedophilia, when they aren’t. You don’t solve the problem if you attack it in the wrong way.

Thankfully, our Church leaders know the truth and are working to rectify the situation.

 

[Ockham]

1. Ah, other examples ARE instructive. So by this reasoning, New York and Washington DC had an ARAB problem on September 11, 2001? Is that really what you are meaning to say? I hope not. I call it a terrorism problem.

Correct. It is a terrorist problem. Arabs/Islam have a terrorist problem just like we had a homosexual priest sex abuser problem. If homosexuals account for 2% of the general population then why were some 80% of the cases homosexual in nature? Rhetorical question by the way.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

The first part is probably the most accurate," Any sexual predication upon a child by an adult is pedophilia whether involving a heterosexual or a homosexual"., but for some unknown reason, it always seems to curve-ball away and blame is squarely fixed : “referred to as a homosexual scandal” "There’s more of THEM doing it… than US? Is it because it involves church personel?

I am a married man with children, but I am not deluded into believing that the Pedophile scandal is a homosexual scandal. It is not. There is a weak attempt to guide it there, but evil does not know gender, color or creed. Evil comes in all forms shapes and sizes to include but limited to Homosexual or Heterosexual. I am not pro-MO, but more I do not appreciate people thinking they can get over. People are educated today and because I say it enough, won’t fly like it did in the 60’s.

Blame is used and placed as a diversionary, evasive tatic to minimize guilt in an attempt to live with ourselves? Why? I believe the “them not us” is used because the thought that straight male and females can sexually abuse children makes us all vunerable, and that scares moms and dads, and that would be correct.

If you are a parent or care about children, be always on your guard because pedophiles are male and female, straight or gay, heteroseual and homosexual. I believe this diversion to make people believe that this is more about the pedophilia in the church is done more by homosexuals is dangerous and can lead people into a false sense of security allowing some people to let their guard down on people presenting themselves as Straight and Heterosexual. Can this person harm my child and sexually abuse them…and the anser is Yes.

This is the truth some seek to avoid and is a form of sticking your head in the sand, which can be dangerous to your children’s well being.:

I accept fully that abuse is evil and should be dealt with for what it is. The issue as we address it is clearly an evil act of grown men who happened to be priests who were inclined towards sexual abuse of MALE children. Sorry, but a teen is still a child in my eyes and to make the crime less responsible because of a childs age is in itself an act of abetting.

I also think those who divert this discussion to ‘terrorism’, ‘abuse on girls or women’, or even make a distinction between a teen and a prepubescent child is going off on a tangent.

Let us address simply the issue at hand: a man who in authority as a priest had a responsibility for the care of children and abused it to satisfy his own lustful sexual needs and forgot his vows or simply ignored them.

 

[Aramis]

What causes people like this to become priests? Is it predominate in Catholiscsm or do we hear about this in Protestant denomiations as well.
Dave H

Rate is closer to 4% in hierarchichal protestants… worse in more decentralized ones… in one Baptist conference, it was 12% (leaderu.com/theology/southernbapt.html )