"WASHINGTON – Researchers hired by the U.S. Roman Catholic bishops to determine the causes of the sex crisis that convulsed the church dismissed all the usual suspects:

"Few of the offenders were pedophiles. The abusers were not acting on their homosexuality. Mandatory celibacy did not turn clerics into molesters.

"Instead, most of the priest-offenders came from seminary classes of the 1940s and 1950s who were not properly trained to confront the upheavals of the 1960s, when behavioral norms were upended and crime overall in the United States spiked, the researchers said...."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110518/ap_on_re/us_rel_church_abuse_report

So the widespread sex abuse in the Catholic Church is not due to more gay men becoming priests nor is it due to the tensions created by forced celibacy. It can be blamed on the phenomenon known as the "1960s", a time when sexual deviancy must have been increasing in society in general.

The priests did it because of the 60's not because they were horny bastards with no sexual outlet. Yeah, right.

Man what a stretch to pass the buck.

Huh..well let's see a study comissioned by the victums, let them pick the researchers but let the RC church pay for it only. Then let's see what is said.

stormy

molested little boys because of the upheavals of the '60s? Ridiculous! Are there significant examples of non-pedophiles doing this type of thing in any other group? It's not like these were isolated incidents. This was happening throughout the Church. My guess is that the trappings of a priest with access to children attracted pedophiles who could hide behind the priesthood and not have to deal with the typical expectations in society of marriage, adult sexual relationships, etc.

To go along with your line of thinking....

Doesn't the fact that you had sex with a child MAKE you a pedophile? To say that these priests weren't pedophiles is absolute crap.

My father was a pedophile, but denied he had done anything wrong. Of course a priest is going to say, "I'm not a pedophile".

Another theory I read is that pedophiles can be religious and thus feel guilt over their urges. Some of them see being a celibate priest as an answer to their problem. They think being a priest will help them control their urges. Unfortuantely, it doesn't usually work that way. I do agree that homosexuality and celibacy don't turn people into pedophiles. I doubt that it because of the sexual revolution in the 60s either.

Within the LDS church, how many desperate, believing young gay men were convinced that if they "served an honorable mission," their "unnatural desires" would be taken away, they wouldn't be gay any more, could marry in the temple, yada, yada??

Hey, if you're doing God's work, he's gotta get in there and help you overcome your personal struggles, right? Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

But the article says that "the John Jay researchers said that the offenders chose to victimize boys mainly because clergy had greater access to them.

""We looked at behavior of men before they entered seminary, in seminary and once they were ordained," Terry said. "Those who participated in same-sex behavior were not significantly more likely to abuse children than men who had not had that same-sex behavior.""

This finding would seem to support the mandatory celibacy of Catholic preists as a cause of the problem which the study also dismissed. Blaming the 1960's is the most ridiculous finding of all.

The Catholic Church is institutionally allergic to find fault with itself, and must project its problems onto groups that it despises.

Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth, blamed homosexuality for the pedophilia. Convenient that it's a group he hates that is responsible for an embarrassing problem.

Catholic coverups, on the other hand, had a lot to do with it. Unrealistic expectations about basic sexuality, too much authority given to on man over others, and lack of oversight all contributed as well.

Rather than standing for righteousness and providing a shelter from the storms of social upheaval, it simply adopted the ways of the sinners?

the sexual revolution caused the church to cover up the pedophile behavior of it's employees?

I think the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests got it right when they "dismissed the report as "garbage in, garbage out"", and "David O'Brien, a historian of American Catholicism at the University of Dayton, said the report was dangerous because it seemed to exonerate bishops" got it spot on. While pedophile preists are definately a problem, the Bishops and other Catholic authorities protecting them is an even greater problem because it gave a kind of implicit concent to their behavior. Again and again these preists were put in situation where they had opportunity to abuse children and parishoners.

I find the arguing over whether or not the preist who had sex with children could be "technically defined as pedophiles" particularly disturbing. Abuse of children (or adults for that matter) is bad but protecting them again and again is even worse. In my mind, this is the issue and worst criticism of the Catholic Church - they porotected abusers while ignoring the victim or shaming them into silence.

I found it amusing and horrifying that the authors of the study changed the definition of pedophile to exclude priests whose victims were over the age of 12. The "They weren't pedophiles b/c their victims were older than 12" argument doesn't pass the BS litmus test.

Abusive priests are abusive priests and all of the were pedophiles if the abuse victim is a child.

Truthseeker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found it amusing and horrifying that the authors
> of the study changed the definition of pedophile
> to exclude priests whose victims were over the age
> of 12. The "They weren't pedophiles b/c their
> victims were older than 12" argument doesn't pass
> the BS litmus test.
>
> Abusive priests are abusive priests and all of the
> were pedophiles if the abuse victim is a child.

Actually the correct term for someone who has sex with a pubescent child or adolescent is ephebophile. Perhaps that is the distinction they were trying to make. However, it is still illegal regardless of the term.

I have not seen a single story about a priest moslesting a YOUNG GIRL!

The stories are always about YOUNG MEN.

Even if priests have a little more contact with boys than girls (Alter Boys), it doesn't seem sufficient to explain why victims appear to ALWAYS BE BOYS.

The answer is that a high percentage of Priests are gay, so a high prcentage of victims are boys. (This is not intended to mean that Gays are more likely to be molesters than straights, just that more Priests are gay, thus more victims are male.)

A ANON Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have not seen a single story about a priest
> moslesting a YOUNG GIRL!
>
> The stories are always about YOUNG MEN.
>
> Even if priests have a little more contact with
> boys than girls (Alter Boys), it doesn't seem
> sufficient to explain why victims appear to ALWAYS
> BE BOYS.
>
> The answer is that a high percentage of Priests
> are gay, so a high prcentage of victims are boys.
> (This is not intended to mean that Gays are more
> likely to be molesters than straights, just that
> more Priests are gay, thus more victims are male.)

It is also possible that they have more access to boys. There are certain pedophiles who like children of both genders. BTW, I have heard of girls being molested by priests, but I agree that you don't hear about it as often.

From the article: "the John Jay researchers said that the offenders chose to victimize boys mainly because clergy had greater access to them."

I don't understand why they go on to conclude that forced celibacy of preists had nothing to do with it.

I don't think that they would want to reach the conclusion that a policy they've had for centuries (requiring priests to be celibate) is to blame.

A ANON said "I have not seen a single story about a priest moslesting a YOUNG GIRL!"

Girls were molested too. It wasn't just priests molesting the children. Nuns also did it. Here is one article.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/25/jesuits-pay-record-166-1-million-in-child-abuse-case/?hpt=T2

"Mendez, a Yakama tribal member who didn't attend Friday's press conference, was 11 when she was sent to St. Mary's Mission by a state foster worker and was abused for a year by the Jesuit priest who ran the school, she said in the statement."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2011 05:31PM by Hoggle.

Celibacy makes a negligible contribution.

Sexual abuse has more to do with the wielding of power over others than sex.

Churches other than Catholic, Scout troops, Little League Baseball, etc etc etc have men in leadership positions who are not required to be celibate, yet you are still going to find kids being molested.

Straight or gay, when a man targets youth of any sex, that isn't normal, natural sexual attraction. It's an exercise of power.

~VOW

voweaver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Celibacy makes a negligible contribution.
>
> Sexual abuse has more to do with the wielding of
> power over others than sex.
>
> Churches other than Catholic, Scout troops, Little
> League Baseball, etc etc etc have men in
> leadership positions who are not required to be
> celibate, yet you are still going to find kids
> being molested.
>
> Straight or gay, when a man targets youth of any
> sex, that isn't normal, natural sexual attraction.
> It's an exercise of power.
>
> ~VOW

I'm thinking that normal priests who have not had sex for a long time are not going to become perverts. If they break their vows, it would be with a woman. As you said, there are non celebate perverts out there-lots of them. I don't see why celibacy shoule be a big factor.

to ensure its own survival. That's what big businesses do.

"Situational ethics" are equally useful to Catholics, LDS, and the rest of us.

was that when the report refers to the cultural upheavals of the 60's, it was referring to Vatican II, which the current pope abhorred and is trying to undo.

So, it's not just the hippies. The funniest response was on the Colbert Report, where Stephen undertook to upgrade the priests' training (which the report found deficient): DO give sermons; DON'T molest ANYONE!"

Also, the point about the Catholic church rarely admitting wrong (they did apologize to Galileo, centuries after the fact) is right on the mark. They have had to cling to the proscription against birth control, condoms, etc., because to do otherwise would call into question the decisions of past modern popes.

The morg also rarely, if ever admits wrong-doing; they just conveniently ignore the past pronouncements and say, "Oh, look over there!"

I think I agree that celibacy did not cause the problem. I don't think being celibate for two years while serving a mission turns Mormon men into pervs who desire to molest young boys.

Mark Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think I agree that celibacy did not cause the
> problem. I don't think being celibate for two
> years while serving a mission turns Mormon men
> into pervs who desire to molest young boys.

That is my point. I think celibacy is wrong on many levels, but I don't think it is the cause of the child abuse scandal. I think pedophilia starts in childhood and is often a result of the perp having been abused himself.Besides there are plenty pf other ways for a horny priest to have sex and most of them will not get him locked up for years if caught.In fact there are women who are attracted to priests and who wouldn't hesistate to have sex with them.