Is celibacy the cause of the abuse scandals?

I don't think celibacy is an important factor. I think it is all about opportunity. What do we know about paedophilia? I don't know much about it but I would think it a reasonable suggestion that people are born with a sexual attraction to children, so celibacy does not cause paedophilia, it is an inherent trait. The difference between paedophilia and any other type of sexual attraction is of course that children are unable to be consenting sexual partners, which is why all expressions of paedophilia constitute criminal sexual abuse.

Like Watto pointed out, the difference between a regular citizen paedophile and a paedophile in the clergy is that a priest is in a position of authority and is surrounded by little children. So I would say that it is opportunity rather than celibacy which accounts for abuse in the church.

I think it's a good point to compare the frequency of sexual abuse incidents between different denominations, but I think you have to be careful there as well, because different denominations run their churches differently as well. For example, the protestant church I am most familiar with doesn't have altar boys, the priest doesn't have anything to do with children groups, they are run by 'elders' in the church and the whole organization promotes the idea of active community interaction in every aspect of the church. In other words, even if the priest was a paedophile, the way the church is run would not give him any real opportunity to offend.

 

'Is celibacy in Catholic priesthood the cause of...'.

But if other groups of celibates have no problem, then that suggests to me it has nothing to do with the celibacy and much more to do with "catholic priesthood" or other related factors.

Recently a former LDS bishop was convicted of molesting children, but in that case he and his wife had adopted 6 children from Africa to the 6 they already had, and those were the children he abused and the paper didn't say anything about him abusing other kids. I don't really know much about how others organize themselves, but young children only spend a few hours in church with Sunday school teachers and there is usually more than one adult in Boy Scout and other activities.

The much easier explanation is just that they had easy access to children in a position where they were unquestioned, and the organization didn't see it as a serious enough problem to effectively stop it.

And considering the many abused who don't view the Catholic church as pure evil, they do a lot of good as well and aren't ALL pedophiles.

 

No, it's because of the sex abuse. But yeah, I bet the celibacy thing doesn't help.

 

It is that hard to resist something you've never experienced?

If you've been celibate for 40years, why suddenly give in? and for a child of all people?

Like rapists, paedophiles are mentally disturbed, I think it has very little to do with being celibate.

 

Yeah, but I bet you'd have a lot more non-pedophile volunteers for priesthood if you could be married.

 

But isn't that a different issue entirely? Being celibate doesn't cause anyone to have sex with children, but I'm sure there are variety of social factors that lead to pedophiles being drawn to being priests. A lack of competition with other volunteers in today's society seems to be a more reasonable hypothesis, but in my view doesn't have the explanatory power that the simple fact is that it seems these priests had unquestioned authority and control over children.

I mean we could also ask why is it that pedophiles seek women with children? I don't have any hard facts to back this up but I think step fathers are more likely to molest or abuse their step children than their own children.

And the bottom line is that in the case of the Catholic church most of the problems could have been avoided if they had simply been honest and open, and worried more about the welfare of the victims than protecting the church. That is the true scandal, and if people don't want to have sex, I think that is a lifestyle choice they should be free to make without ridicule.

I find it interesting that some of those who advocate against discrimination against people who choose alternative sexual lifestyles can be so judgmental against people who decide they don't want to have sex, and that such behavior is unnatural, unhealthy, and leads them to molest children. Just because YOU can't go without sex doesn't mean someone else can't, and for people who lay claim to sole ownership of being "open-minded" it seems a very hypocritical stance to take.

 

I don't think celibacy leads to molesting little boys; there must something vastly wrong with that person to begin with to go for boys while being a full-grown man. The Priest would obviously need help that has nothing to do with celibacy. Married men have been known to molest children; you hear stories about it all the time. A Step Dad, married uncle or Foster father.



Espaldapalabras writes:

I'm currently a celibate man and I've never once wanted to molest a child. You want more proof than that, you should be the one to start proving otherwise.


I think that is a really good thing. When you're celibate you become very focused on other things around you and sometimes more productive. I'm celibate right now myself because of my faith in Christ. But I wrote a book, published it and I'm attending three different colleges and getting 2 more college degrees; I produced an indie feature film. Though there was time when I wasn't celibate. I have no desire for molesting children, that's for sure. The thought is upsetting actually.

 

Espaldapalabras, I think one could say that its more... is the policy of celibacy a cause?


Suppose another question would be, since I'm not familiar enough to know, does pedophilia involve not having a sexual interest in adults at all such that they'd not be impacted by celibacy restrictions in the same way that would have sexual interest in adults that would be prohibited?

Not to say that celibacy can't be a choice on its own as well.

 

Okay, the Catholic priest's celibacy is quite imcomparable to 'being celibate for a while'. I don't think Espy nor Wormie know any better than me how life must be for a sex-starved Catholic priest. Also, I reject the notion that 'you' become focused if you're bound to celibacy; I'm sure I'd go raving mad. What both Espy and Wormie seem to forget is that everybody is different.

I'm still working on the perfect wording for my topic, though, because I agree that celibacy is of course not the only thing. But I would be cheering if the Church would drop it. It´s a bit like communism to me - a lofty ideal, but in the end too idealistic to be appliccable to man - who's only human.

 

There are plenty of priests my age, and I've gone without sex just as long as they have. I personally think it is doctrinally wrong to force priests to be celibate, but this notion that being celibate somehow changes your sexual preferences to young boys is odd to hear from so called "liberals." It sounds to me you've discovered what makes people go gay.

If it was up to me, there are a lot of things I would change about the Catholic church. But a policy of celibacy causing changes in the makeup of the pool of available priests is much different argument than one where you put normal straight men, tell them not to have sex, and instead of going after some nice young teenage girl instead seeks out those prepubescent boys. Yes people are different, and as a missionary saw a few cases where fellow missionaries and have heard of many others that couldn't keep it in their pants, and every time they failed to touch young boys.

I can buy the argument that normal people don't join the priesthood nowadays because they want families and that leaves all the creeps and weirdos, but the celibacy itself isn't a cause and it is stupid to say otherwise.

 

Missionary is generally a two-year position, yes? After which you go back to your normal career path? A career path that's probably going to be completely unaffected whether you have sex or not?

As opposed to a priest, whose life's vocation is in jeopardy if he's caught. And while he's certainly an authority figure to Catholic adults and children alike, children are much easier to intimidate into secrecy than adult women*. And aside from confession, there are few times where it's seemly for a woman to spend a great deal of time alone with a priest. Whereas priests are alone with young boys rather often. And boys can be effeminate in a number of ways.

I imagine Catholic priests go for boys for the same reason unattractive lonely men go for nasty hookers - it's the closest they can afford to get to the real thing.

EDIT: Though, yeah, a lot of them are probably just flat-out sicko pedophiles.


*Or maybe women ARE easier to intimidate, and that's why we only hear about the boys.

 

But isn't that more of a problem of them being left alone with a bunch a little boys rather than the celibacy?

 

Sure - that's definitely a huge problem. But of course the solution here is "don't trust your religious authority figures so blindly," which is hardly the sort of message a church cares to deliver.

I don't think it's solely one aspect or another, but the COMBINATION.

If priests weren't required to be celibate, but were still trusted alone with young boys, I think there would be fewer incidents of molestation

If priests weren't so trusted alone with young boys, but were still required to be celibate, I think there would be fewer incidents of molestation.

Statistically speaking there would still be isolated incidents in both cases, but not nearly as many. Less in the latter than the former, too, I'd guess.

But just because celibacy is a lesser component doesn't mean it ISN'T a component.

 

Espaldabras writes:

but this notion that being celibate somehow changes your sexual preferences to young boys is odd to hear from so called "liberals." It sounds to me you've discovered what makes people go gay.

I agree, I don't see how being celibate makes you suddenly desire little boys. I think people pretty much know if they are straight, gay, bi, or into little kids (boys) at least by their 20s. I shot a documentary about a Catholic Priest when I was in film school back in 90s who gave up his girlfriend to join the priesthood. He didn't seem like someone who was desiring little boys due to being celibate. He just said it was a decision he made because he was happier living his life for God.

 

I just don't see how celibacy plays a role at all. Paedophiles offend whether they are celibate or not. All peadophiles are sexually frustrated whether they are celibate or not. Why would a person who finds children sexually attractive be less likely to offend just because they are in an adult sexual relationship? It doesn't make any sense to me

Edit; whilst it is strange that I find myself in agreement with Espy and Wormie on this issue I think it reinforces my worldview that labels and stereotypes are worthless conceits.

 

The hypothesis implies that you don´t necessarily go in as a paedophile, you go in with the best intentions - but you find yourself unable to live a life without sex, and in the Catholics' interpretation, little boys are the one thing the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid.

 

The problem with that is the assumed causality between absence of sex and sexual attraction to children. Sexual attraction is something you are born with and which manifests itself as the person comes of age. So I would say thay every paedophile priest went into the clergy as a person who found children sexually attractive. It is opportunity and implulsiveness which leads to actual offending behaviour.

I would say that celibate priests are more likely to be confused about their sexual attractions as sexual attraction itself is obviously something that has to be controlled, unlike a sexually active priest who would be aware earlier of his sexual identity.

Even then, it is one thing to find children sexually attractive and another thing to act on that attraction. Here I think is where opportunity and impulse come into play, rather than celibacy.

 

Bill Donahue: The majority of cases are not pedophilia.

As I said on my facebook link: What the **** is wrong with these people?

I just don't get it.

 

Technically, he's right, but for all the wrong and ignorant reasons. It's not pedophilia (or ephebophilia since he insists on being pendantic) in the same way that most cases of prison rape aren't homosexual. Though an act may have occurred, it's not usually about sexual desire for the victim, but dominance. Sexual abuse is about power, not sex. No matter the victim, human or animal, male or female, elder or child, it's power over someone who for some reason or another can't say no. Not all of the pedophiles are actual molesters, and not all child molesters are pedophiles.

I am going to assume that you haven't made a mess in your pants today because you are in control of your bodily functions and can control release. If deprived of a toilet, you will eventually have problems (actually you'll probably just use the floor, dignity be damned), but the same cannot truly be said of living without sex. Sex is like the internet- it's fun and having access to a safe, secure and friendly source might improve your life, but you will not turn into a madman if deprived of it. If honestly addicted, any withdrawal symptoms are probably mental and require genuine treatment, but you will not be suffering any purely physical urges (or at least that was the scientific consensus the last time I checked). What you're saying is offensive, since arguments about some sort of overpowering sex drive that turns humans into mindless rapebots is one of the key factors in victim-blaming and victim-shaming that goes on when people tell victims that they wouldn't have been raped had they not been wearing certain clothing or acting a certain way. It was always the perpetrator's choice. "Sex drive" has nothing to do with it (nor the impairment of judgment) and does not, nor should not, serve as a legal defense in any court of law. You may find someone, something or some category to be rather desirable but you ultimately decide what to do with yourself.

The human mind and desires are not extremely well understood especially when we bring things like sex, relationships, social structures and power dynamics into the mix. But boiling it down to them being nothing more than animals with their desires chained by an iron will that weakens when a display is placed before them does everyone a disservice and I kindly ask you to stop saying that because it's really not helping. You don't go out and rape others, and it would be quite stupid of me to imply that that's only because you have some sort of outlet that if you're deprived of, will turn you into some sort of psychotic criminal.

 

I had stopped, already, but this is such a strange plea that I have to go on. You're saying that 'boiling the human mind down to people being nothing more than animals with their desires chained by an iron will that weakens when a display is placed before them does everyone a disservice', but you fail to explain why. Yet, you have the nerve to 'ask me to stop saying that', because 'it's really not helping' - but you fail to explain what it should be helping, and so you don't explain why should I stop.

The operative word here is 'some'. As I said, I'm not after blanket statements and I think most people have a mind that is resistant to these thing. But yes, I do believe that some men - when deprived of sex and given a flock of wee young boys - will go over the edge, moreso when their doctrine doesn't explicitly forbid it like it forbids any other kinds of sex.

The proof is right there in your newspaper.

 

That and isn't masturbation also a sin? So, biologically we've got sexual desires and we're programmed for such desires and here you have some bass ackwards ideas in the church that expressly forbids them from acting on said desires and you think that has nothing to do with it? Get real and live in reality. That's got to have some psychological impact on some priests than others. It really is no different than what goes on in a prison except the age of the parties involved.

 

Please stop making things up. The Catechism specifically says that anyone who commits such a sin against a child is compounding the crime (and some try to argue that the bible supports the death penalty for those who harm children, which is a bit too much of a tangent). The Catholic church has lots of weird backwards and harmful policies, but at least give them enough credit to admit that they're not telling their members to go wild on children. Child abuse is a serious crime.

Child abuse crosses all boundaries of race, class, religion and education. Could the ratio of abuse per member of the clergy be higher than in the civilian population? Maybe, maybe not. A major problem is that abuse by clergy also suffers from the same problem as abuse by other professionals (doctors, teachers, officers) in that it is severely under-reported. Victims are often afraid that they will not be believed due to confidentiality and the abuser's reputation, and they may not even be fully aware of the abuse visited on them, cloaked in the guise of procedure. So what do we do when we can't get a more detailed look out of the numbers? We compare.

Sexual assault covers all types, young and old, male and female, rich and poor, stranger and acquaintance. We know something about the victims and know something about the offenders. Child victims tend to have a higher rate of assault by assailants they knew; 93% compared to the 73% for the general population. 34% were family members, 59% were acquaintances (or possibly as high as 60% family members) as compared to the general population's 38% friend/acquaintance, 28% intimate, 7% relative. In both adolescents and adults, females are more likely to be assaulted than males. From the general population, four in ten assaults takes place in the victim's home, two in ten in the home of someone the victim knows.

So what does that mean? The most common child victim is a female assaulted by a relative or acquaintance in or nearby her home. Oddly enough, that's also the most common adult victim. Hold that thought for a moment. So why would someone sexually assault someone else, especially a child? Well, it varies. Is it really about desire though? Not really. Not as most know it. Men and women of all appearances are assaulted and it so often has little to do with simple attraction. Rape is an expression of dominance, the ability to freely take what should only be given through force or coercion. It's a celebration of the attacker's power asserted over those the assailant sees as victims. Maybe there are some elements that can make a victim more desirable to an assailant, but remove them and it doesn't really mean that the assault would not take place.

Meet Earl Bradley, former pediatrician in Delaware. He had a wife, kids, a practice, and 471 charges relating to sexual assault of 103 victims and counting over the past fifteen years. If he had sex a few more times a month/week/day, would it have saved even one of those children? Is his wife to blame for any of this? No, no one would make that claim. Based on the tapes he

 

That was a very well written post.

 

While I don't believe that celibacy is the cause of gruesome acts of sexual voilence, I do think that the Catholic Church was wrong by trying to cover up the sex scandal in the Church. I know it is tradition, but maybe they need to get rid of their altar boys all together?

 

The issue isn't the altar boys, the issue is the unwillingness to turn over information of what crimes priests have committed against children to the proper authorities.