Why do people assume that married priests wouldn’t abuse children at the same rate as celibate priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FloridaCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
Why would this prevent a man who is inclined to want to sexually molest boys and young men from doing so? Would such a man even want to marry a woman?
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, if she already has children, yes, he would be very happy to marry her (or at least be her live-in boyfriend.)

Predators pick easy targets.
 
Jerry Sandusky’s wife was really keeping an eye on him while he was molesting boys at Penn State for decades…including their own son.

Sadly there are many cases of men molesting their very own children under their wife’s nose while she pretends she doesn’t see it happening or even tells the kid s/he’s lying when the kid tells Mom about the abuse.

I read on a regular basis about serial rapists with wives at home and sometimes kids. The men pretend they are going out to work or run errands. Instead they go out to rape. I just read one about a serial rapist in my home town who had to interrupt a rape to call his wife back as she was leaving messages wondering where he was as it was getting late.

Wives do not stop sex crimes. Sorry.
 
Could you imagine what the response would be if the suggestion was made that women need a man to marry, so that he can keep an eye on her behaviour, because women on their own are at risk of becoming child molesters?
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt we will see a lowering of the standards for priesthood when we need to raise the standards. Priest need to spend more time ministering to people and more time in prayer.
The shortage will be filled with deacons. Priest will visit once a week and concentrate enough host for the next week. Lines for confession will be longer. We will see more vocations when we are willing to be open to more children and willing to give them to the service of the church. 🙏
 
Considering that 85% of clergy sex abuse is male on male, I think a lot of people are in real denial of what the biggest issue plaguing the priesthood is today.
Single straight men are certainly NOT the problem.
 
Since he is married he is more likely to get away with molesting his stepchildren since everyone knows married men are less likely to commit crimes.

Any pedophile who is seeking to continue with his proclivities will be in all likelihood be looking to get married rather than seeking to get ordained. Marriage provides a better cover than ordination especially nowadays when people think that all Catholic priests are pedophiles.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think women and men are the same, and neither do most people.

So its pretty unlikely you would ever hear that
 
There is still something problematic about the concept that marriage somehow prevents men from committing crimes, in particular sexual crimes against children.

Pedophiles have a very, very high recidivism rate. If a child molester gets married will he be cured of his propensity? I doubt it.

Let’s take a laicized priest who gets married and who has this tendency. Will he suddenly go on the straight and narrow path to virtue without true repentance? I doubt it. I would be worried about his future children that’s for sure.
 
The assumption has been thrown out there many, many times in the last several weeks as these reports of abuse have been in the news that if we’d just allow clergy to marry, they would not commit sexual abuse. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing it, and here’s why. I won’t get into all the statistics and everything else, that’s been talked about a number of times. But there are three reasons that it’s an argument that’s completely bunk.
  1. It assumes a very low view of men. The idea is that men are a bunch of sex-starved animals, and they need something to keep their urges in line, or else they’ll commit sexual abuse. In addition to completely missing out on what leads to sex abuse (it’s a pathology, not normal urges that have been directed at the wrong target), it’s actually pretty insulting to men to assume that this is true. Do divorced men commit abuse as soon as they are no longer married? Do younger men abuse until the time they get married? Do widowers abuse because they no longer have a wife? We don’t make this assumption about other sorts of people who aren’t married, and even who aren’t married long term, and even who aren’t married long term by choice, so why make this assumption about clergy? It buys into the secular mentality that sex is this inevitable necessity, and in order to keep us from just falling apart at the seems, we all need to have sex all the time. This is all pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
  2. It assumes a very low view of women. If men are just sex-starved animals who need a release for their deviant urges, lest they commit abuse, then saying “they should just get married” is effectively saying that women exist as cannon fodder to keep men from becoming abusers, and instead gives those men a target for their desires. Do you honestly think anyone marries for that reason? Does anyone think “man, if I don’t get a wife, I’ll never be able to get ahold of myself?” If someone came into my office and wanted to get married because they were afraid they’d commit sexual abuse if they didn’t, I would very likely not even begin the paperwork to get them into marriage prep, I would instead give them the business card of a therapist. Sex abuse stems from a pathology, not from not having somewhere to direct your otherwise normal sexual desires.
 
I have actually heard that and also read that assertion about women.
 
  1. It assumes a very low view of marriage. If we assume what I have just stated about men and about women, then effectively, marriage exists as a sort of prison to keep deviant men off the street and away from potential targets for abuse. Never mind the fact that abuse doesn’t happen because someone isn’t married, and never mind the fact further that marriage is no kind of guarantee against abuse–an abuser will abuse whether married or not, because do you really think that someone inclined to abuse is going to care about marital infidelity of the grossest kind? If someone came into my office with that understanding of marriage, I would be bound in conscience not to let them get married. Marriage is meant to be a permanent, exclusive, and fruitful union between the spouses, for their mutual sanctification and the procreation and sanctification of their children.
If I seem a bit worked up about this, it’s because I’m tired of people using this very awful moment as a chance to advance an agenda or to start a revolution. If there’s a disease, let’s cure the disease. But saying that we should end celibacy to combat child sex abuse by clergy is like saying that we can cure AIDS by amputating your leg. It’s a big, invasive gesture, and it has nothing to do with the actual pathology causing the problem.

-Fr ACEGC
 
However the notion that men are so naturally depraved they need a woman to keep an eye on them in order that they do not molest children and young men is a bit out of order, don’t you think?
 
Last edited:
Even more disquieting is the notion that women function as scratching posts for men and their sexual urges. As a previous poster pointed out it provides a low view of men, women and marriage.
 
Yes, if it were single straight men you would have the scandal of priests having affairs with grown women not children or teen-aged boys.
 
Brendan_64 said:
However the notion that men are so naturally depraved they need a woman to keep an eye on them in order that they do not molest children and young men is a bit out of order, don’t you think?
Click to expand...
I can agree with you here, single men are no more likely to be a chomo than a a married guy.

But in the more general sense, women are a civilizing force on men, Men are less likely to get involved in gang activity, or other risky criminal activity if they are married.

Almighty God remarked “It is not good for man to be alone” before He decided to create women.
 
FloridaCatholic said:
Or have affairs with adults on the side at the same rate as celibate priests?

I’m really against this push for married priests. If there ever was a time to have married priests, it’s definitely not during a scandal
Click to expand...
I know, right?. The main idea is that celibacy is repressive, so these men must find outlets somehow. But that’s absurd. There is absolutely nothing about celibacy that would cause it to make a grown man suddenly attracted to little boys, let alone cause a draw so powerful that they’d have no choice but to drop their moral gaurd down that low. I can’t imagine anything that should cause such ugly nonsense for that matter.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
I disagree with many things the Australian Royal Commission, which is a political body and appears to be biased against the Church as well as not very well informed on a number of aspects of this topic, had to say. I don’t think anything is gained by reading their hodgepodge of “conclusions”. Not to mention that, not being Australian and dealing with a significantly different legal system here in the states, most of what they say is simply foreign to me and lacking in value.
Click to expand...
You don’t understand what a Royal Commission is, and what it’s role is. Thats ok we have very different systems. There is no factual basis in your conclusion that it is biased against the Church. I suggest you read its conclusions. I am surprised you find the facts on the extent of institutional historic sexual abuse lacks value. Being foreign does not equal lacking in value. The lack of value you cite is surely not found in prosecutions of perpetrators, or prevention and in care for survivors. One immense value in the Royal Commission was for survivors and families of those who suicided or died from addiction, TO FINALLY BE HEARD. Finally be believed, finally be listened to.
Not being well informed? Considering panels of experts and testimony from top people in their fields the Royal Commissions are hardly guilty of not being well informed.
Hodgepodge of conclusions? You mean conclusions on the extent of Historic sex abuse discovered? Just which conclusion do you regard as hodgepodge. how was that conclusion reached?

Considering Royal Commissions are established by the Governor-General, to look into matters of public importance, they are above political division. And are not political bodies. The governor-general is the representative of the Queen our monarch.

Our next Royal Commission is into aged care and what’s going on and regulated in that area. what needs to be done to stop abuse and provide better care and staffing. It’s long overdue for an inquiry into this industry. And again, it will cover all institutions, be they run by Catholic Sisters or private business or government providers. Royal Commissions don’t discriminate.

“Royal Commissions should be the highest form of inquiry established by the Governor-General of Australia to look into matters of substantial public importance.
Official Inquiries should be established by a minister to look into matters of public importance.
Both Royal Commissions and Official Inquiries should have the power to:
require the production of documents and other things;
require the attendance or appearance to answer questions and
inspect, retain and copy any documents or other thing.”

It’s a huge thing for a 50 or 60 yo survivor to finally have her story heard. It’s a huge thing for a 50 or 60 yo survivor to finally have what happened to him validated. It’s a huge thing for the family of a suicide victim be able to see justice in the abuser being convicted and jailed.
You might call these things lacking in value and these conclusions hodgepodge, but I guarantee you, those involved would not concur.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top