Pedophile Priests Pedophilia Crisis And The Rest of the Story

[dixieagle]

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

A very good question that gets to the heart of the matter.

This is just my own humble opinion, but it seems to me that men with a predisposition to be molesters - whether true pedophiles or ephebophiles - would be likely to seek out professions in which they would have “easy access” to their prey. That would include the priesthood, teaching, the ministry, etc. I honestly believe that many of these men entered the priesthood because they knew they would be well positioned to abuse.

I know personally of at least a half a dozen priests who were convicted of various types of abuse; the large Massachusetts parish in which I grew up had two at the same time (later convicted.) There seems to have been an inordinate number of abusive priests in Massachusetts (the notorious Paul Shanley among them) but perhaps that is because of the large number of Catholics (at least in name.) There have also long been allegations of a “ritual abuse” ring in Massachusetts, but I have no details of that.

All of this plays right into the hands of those who hate the Church; sadly, the stupid handling of the situation has made things even worse.

The defensiveness I still see exhibited by some clergy is most disappointing; instead of whining that they have been painted with a broad brush, they should be strongly speaking out in defense of victims, and exhibiting righteous anger against those transgressors who are guilty of bringing shame upon even good priests. It will be a very long time before the stigma of this awful scandal wears off, sadly.

 

[Ockham]

At the risk of being accused of over-simplification, I see this issue as two pronged. If you are sexually attracted to a teenager of same gender - you are gay. If you are sexually attracted to a child of either gender - you are a pedophile. If most of the victims in these cases were teenagers then we had a gay problem. Part of the solution is to keep gays out of the seminary.

 

[Ockham]

There seems to have been an inordinate number of abusive priests in Massachusetts (the notorious Paul Shanley among them) but perhaps that is because of the large number of Catholics (at least in name.) There have also long been allegations of a “ritual abuse” ring in Massachusetts, but I have no details of that.

Paul Shanley is a good example of media distortion. He was certainly gay, broke his vow of celibacy and had numerous affairs with teenagers and young men. However, his name is most closely associated with ‘predator priest’ and pedophila. The charges against him were based on repressed memory syndrome and as such wouldn’t stand up in court today.

If Paul Shanley is a monster, the state didn’t prove it, Jonathan Rauch March 14, 2005

“Shanley’s accusers said he had removed them from catechism class regularly, sometimes weekly, in order to abuse them, but the boys’ teacher said she never sent anyone to visit Shanley and that he never took anyone from class. How could such depravity go unnoticed? In civil depositions, Ford (writes Wypijewski) “testified that he buried the memory of each attack, and thus approached each new encounter with the priest as if it were the first, without fear.””

reason.com/archives/2005/03/14/is-paul-shanley-guilty/

 

[manualman]

At the risk of being accused of over-simplification, I see this issue as two pronged. If you are sexually attracted to a teenager of same gender - you are gay. If you are sexually attracted to a child of either gender - you are a pedophile. If most of the victims in these cases were teenagers then we had a gay problem. Part of the solution is to keep gays out of the seminary.

And that oversimplification IS a big risk. Your last statement presumes that anyone who has an SSA and finds teenage boys attractive is going to act on that. Is that reasonable? Any man who thinks that ought to check his memory to make sure he’s never had a tempting thought about an immodestly dressed 16-17 year old girl!

All I’m saying here folks is to beware and refuse to become a poster child for the gay activists. They GAIN when catholics make unfair scapegoating claims against them, because we look bigoted and stupid. The evidence does not prove that we had an abuse problem because gay men were allowed into the priesthood. It proves we had an abuse problem because we allowed sexual abusers into the priesthood. To say that it was a ‘gay’ problem obviously implied that gay men are more likely to abuse teenage boys than hetero men are to abuse teenage girls. That isn’t proven. What we had in some areas appears to be a subculture of priests who had gay (or possibly bisexual) tendencies AND got off on doing ‘forbidden things’ and getting away with it over and over. Those TWO problems do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Ronsatron,
Your concern and opinion is spot on. And notably, it jibes well with the stance taken by the bishops now that they’ve finally recognized the problem. You should feel better about that than worried that certain CAF members disagree with us.

 

[DebtHawk]

Hi Diane,

I do agree with alot of what you say here, and am pleased you are not trying to defend the way the CC behaved in the past.

The Catholic Church especially after the scandal should thwart the contact of any child with someone who has even an inclination towards deviant acts even if they do not act on them. And yes, anyone wishing to enter the priesthood and admits to being gay should not be allowed to take vows. A gay person although not acting on his or her inclination is always fighting the urge to act and that in itself would be to much a chance for the CC to take.

The only think I have a query with is the above statement. Surely a heterosexual person entering the priesthood also has urges that need to be kept under control? Otherwise it is tarring all homosexuals with the same brush were as I thought being gay was not a sin, it is homosexual acts?
I don’t know how it could be managed, but I feel that screening for anyone who potenially could sexually abuse anyone is the way forward, not just a blanket ban on gay people-- as it was not 100% ephebophilia accoring to the research mentioned earlier.

Regards.

I absolutely believe that the Church should ban gay people from being priests. This atrocity within the Church needs to be wiped out. It is awful that I am having doubts about bringing my children to Catholic Church because of fear that they will be molested.

But, I also agree that any heterosexual person who struggles with thoughts of pedophilia or ephebophilia should not be allowed into the priesthood.

 

[rlg94086]

All I’m saying here folks is to beware and refuse to become a poster child for the gay activists. They GAIN when catholics make unfair scapegoating claims against them, because we look bigoted and stupid.

We should never fear telling the truth because of the reaction from gay activists. There is nothing “bigoted and stupid” about presenting the clear evidence that 80% of the cases were homosexually-oriented ephebophiles and making sure that we screen out candidates to the priesthood with deep-seated homosexual tendencies and/or acceptance of the “gay” culture. The truth is much more important than society’s impression of us.

 

[manualman]

Telling the truth is always paramount. This is why it is crucial to be careful to distinguish statistics from our personal interpretations of them.

Your statistics are true, I’ll give you that much. Your interpretations I find debatable and potentially rash. I’ll let readers judge the difference.

 

[rlg94086]

Your interpretations I find debatable and potentially rash. I’ll let readers judge the difference.

Ditto… As Cardinal Cottier, former theologian of the pontifical household, and Archbishop Tomasi, current UN representative for the Holy See, both agree with me, I figure I’m in pretty good company and not making “rash” judgments.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

I absolutely believe that the Church should ban gay people from being priests. This atrocity within the Church needs to be wiped out. It is awful that I am having doubts about bringing my children to Catholic Church because of fear that they will be molested.

But, I also agree that any heterosexual person who struggles with thoughts of pedophilia or ephebophilia should not be allowed into the priesthood.

Deb,
As another poster has already addressed…there should be removed from any consideration of priesthood anyone who struggles with their sexuality and its possible effects on children whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.
We are now more watchful of any hint of abuse and I am certain those of my faith having been burnt once will not be burnt again if they can help it.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

And that oversimplification IS a big risk. Your last statement presumes that anyone who has an SSA and finds teenage boys attractive is going to act on that. Is that reasonable? Any man who thinks that ought to check his memory to make sure he’s never had a tempting thought about an immodestly dressed 16-17 year old girl!

You my dear are confusing the issue. A man attracted to boys has homosexual inclinations. A man attracted to women has heterosexual inclinations. One is if acted upon, as stated in the bible, a sin while the other is accepted as normal inclinations. The distinction here should be that no act of abuse should be tolerated. From what I read the Catholic priest scandal was not against men with heterosexual inclinations or acts that resulted in illicit sex but involved priests who used their position so as to become involved in homosexual acts of pedophilia. Is that over simplification enough to understand. It is for me.

All I’m saying here folks is to beware and refuse to become a poster child for the gay activists. They GAIN when catholics make unfair scapegoating claims against them, because we look bigoted and stupid. The evidence does not prove that we had an abuse problem because gay men were allowed into the priesthood. It proves we had an abuse problem because we allowed sexual abusers into the priesthood. To say that it was a ‘gay’ problem obviously implied that gay men are more likely to abuse teenage boys than hetero men are to abuse teenage girls. That isn’t proven. What we had in some areas appears to be a subculture of priests who had gay (or possibly bisexual) tendencies AND got off on doing ‘forbidden things’ and getting away with it over and over. Those TWO problems do not necessarily go hand in hand.

Sorry to have to emphasise the point again but the fact is IT WAS A GAY PRIEST PROBLEM, not a heterosexual male on female one. That as I see it is not two problems but ONE which directly led to the scandal of pedophilia in the priesthood.
And since when is truth now called bigotry. That seems to be the defense mode of the gay community of late: bring them out in the open for their abominable ACTS and they will attack you for being a bigot. If I am to be called a bigot for openly condemning active homosexuals in our church who harmed our children then so be it.

 

[Don_Schneider]

I am not defending pedophile—“gay or straight”—priests in the slightest, or pedophiles in general. I am just wondering if one of the reasons why the overwhelming percentage of victims within the Church’s heinous sexual scandal have been boys as opposed to girls could be at least in part explained by the fact that, for obvious reasons, men are far more likely to be sexual predators than women and that boys are more often accessible to priests than are girls?

Even with the introduction of girl altar servers in recent years, it is still more difficult for a priest to come up with a plausible reason to spend time alone with girls than boys, or at least it had been before the chickens came home to roost. Previously, an unrelated adult male spending time with a prepubescent or adolescent girl “just didn’t look right.”

I have no idea if this explains even part of the reason why boys have been so much more victimized than girls in the Church scandal. I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the possibility.

 

[Ronsatron]

Hi all,

The label ‘gay/homosexual problem’ does not represent the issue in my opinion. Even if not intended, it does suggest that homosexuals are sexual abusers. If the research had found that 80% of those accused were heterosexual and 20% were gay, would there be a topic on here addressing the ‘heterosexual problem’? I somehow doubt that. It would be called what it actually is, a sexual abuse scandal.

Not that I think it will be anywhere near the kind of issue it used to be due to more effective screening and hopefully a zero tolerance attitude.

Regards

 

[rlg94086]

Hi all,

The label ‘gay/homosexual problem’ does not represent the issue in my opinion. Even if not intended, it does suggest that homosexuals are sexual abusers.** If the research had found that 80% of those accused were heterosexual and 20% were gay**, would there be a topic on here addressing the ‘heterosexual problem’? I somehow doubt that. It would be called what it actually is, a sexual abuse scandal.

Not that I think it will be anywhere near the kind of issue it used to be due to more effective screening and hopefully a zero tolerance attitude.

Regards

The difference there is that the percentages would be more in line with the general population. It is the very fact that 80% of the cases were homosexually-oriented when the homosexual population at-large is less than 10% that identifies homosexuality as a main component of the problem.

If 80% of the victims were pre-pubescent, it would be a pedophilia problem. If 80% of the victims were teenage girls, it would be a heterosexual ephebophilia problem. They are all “sexual abuse,” but labeling any of them as just “sexual abuse” ignores the root of the problem. Each of those scenarios requires a different action on the part of the Church (tightening up on sexual maturity in general; tightening up on identifying pedophiles; or tightening up on candidates with deep-seated, homosexual tendencies).

 

[fultonfish]

Isn’t there something strange when there is the accusation of hate speech invoked when criticizing homosexual relations. The gay community is quite aggressive about this.

Then there is the contingent from NMBL that advocates homosexual sexual relations between adults and young children. Not much criticism or legal prosecution there. Why the reluctance to prosecute NMBL and its advocates. [Sorry, I cannot bring myself to mention the organization’s name.] [How do they get away with having an actual organization???]

So, it’s ok sometimes but not ok when Roman Catholic priests are involved.

Why has there been such reluctance to kick these priests out of the clergy? Why the shuffling around of these men from place to place?

The most recent example is last week’s bankruptcy of the Wilmington Delaware diocese necessitated to head off lawsuits.

 

[manualman]

I am not defending pedophile—“gay or straight”—priests in the slightest, or pedophiles in general. I am just wondering if one of the reasons why the overwhelming percentage of victims within the Church’s heinous sexual scandal have been boys as opposed to girls could be at least in part explained by the fact that, for obvious reasons, men are far more likely to be sexual predators than women and that boys are more often accessible to priests than are girls?

Even with the introduction of girl altar servers in recent years, it is still more difficult for a priest to come up with a plausible reason to spend time alone with girls than boys, or at least it had been before the chickens came home to roost. Previously, an unrelated adult male spending time with a prepubescent or adolescent girl “just didn’t look right.”

I have no idea if this explains even part of the reason why boys have been so much more victimized than girls in the Church scandal. I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the possibility.

I’m not sure if you noticed when I raised virtually the same point several posts back. I think it’s an important insight to be sure of before jumping the gun. Others don’t agree. (to put it mildly)

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Hi all,

The label ‘gay/homosexual problem’ does not represent the issue in my opinion. Even if not intended, it does suggest that homosexuals are sexual abusers. If the research had found that 80% of those accused were heterosexual and 20% were gay, would there be a topic on here addressing the ‘heterosexual problem’? I somehow doubt that. It would be called what it actually is, a sexual abuse scandal.

Not that I think it will be anywhere near the kind of issue it used to be due to more effective screening and hopefully a zero tolerance attitude.

Regards

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.

 

[Don_Schneider]

I’m not sure if you noticed when I raised virtually the same point several posts back. I think it’s an important insight to be sure of before jumping the gun. Others don’t agree. (to put it mildly)

Dear Manualman,

No, I’m sorry. I didn’t have time today to read the entire thread. However, I’m glad the thought occurred to another. There is the known phenomenon that when men are confined in close quarters with one another, in the absence of women, that men who have no history of homosexual inclinations indulge in that direction. This is common, unfortunately, in prisons and was so in the stereotypical English boarding schools where the sin of “buggery” was once quite a problem.

Prior to recent times, children who were placed in the custodial care of non-family adults would be so on the basis of sex. Men were charged with boys and women with girls. This seemed a common sense precaution which still might be valid in more cases than not. In the Irish Church scandal regarding their industrials schools and, to a lesser extent, orphanages, boys were victims of both sexual and physical abuse, while girls mainly of physical abuse by nuns.

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. Another reason would be the self-conflict within Catholic boys and young men who had been raised with strict moral standards as mandated by the Church. In the wake of Vatican II, which served to (unintentionally) undermine faith, the moral restraints and sense of guilt and sin collapsed as rationalizations replaced self-control. Thus, the great increase in sexual abuse after Vatican II.

I personally lean towards the second interpretation more than towards the first. However, I feel as though the first might explain at least a part of the phenomenon.

By the way, thank you for your wise advice on the thread regarding my exchange with Brother JR. It had the potential to get ugly and your post caused me to hesitate responding to Brother’s response long enough for the moderator to intervene. Therefore, I didn’t have the chance to thank you for your kind comments and sage advice, which I have taken to heart.

Best regards,

Don

 

[rlg94086]

Dear Manualman,

No, I’m sorry. I didn’t have time today to read the entire thread. However, I’m glad the thought occurred to another. There is the known phenomenon that when men are confined in close quarters with one another, in the absence of women, that men who have no history of homosexual inclinations indulge in that direction. This is common, unfortunately, in prisons and was so in the stereotypical English boarding schools where the sin of “buggery” was once quite a problem.

Prior to recent times, children who were placed in the custodial care of non-family adults would be so on the basis of sex. Men were charged with boys and women with girls. This seemed a common sense precaution which still might be valid in more cases than not. In the Irish Church scandal regarding their industrials schools and, to a lesser extent, orphanages, boys were victims of both sexual and physical abuse, while girls mainly of physical abuse by nuns.

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.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not sure if you noticed when I raised virtually the same point several posts back. I think it’s an important insight to be sure of before jumping the gun. Others don’t agree. (to put it mildly)

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.

 

[manualman]

… 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.

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.