What came 1st, the Paedo or the Priest?

[bluesjnr]

We all know about what's going on within the RCC. I'm now seeing people postulating that paedophiles have been exploiting the laxity of the church to allow them access to their desires.

What's the answer then?

We can all make a joke centered around the word "came" so let's not see any in respect of this subject please.

 

[Darat]

I remember this being raised when the Ryan Report came out... here we go, my response back then:

One aspect of this I haven't seen discussed is the likelihood (to my mind) that a substantial number of pederasts joined this particular Catholic sect precisely because it was recognised as being the way to get what they wanted while being protected from any legal consequences. It's still mostly being presented as "look what these terrible religious people did". However, it seems to me that many of these perpetrators probably had no religious calling at all, but joined up in order to get access to children to abuse. Then of course if enough committed pederasts are in the organisation, some will obviously rise to positions of authority and influence, and so it will become even easier for the organisation to be hijacked in this manner.

I'm not saying this to excuse what happened in any way - quite the contrary. I'm saying that a sect of the Catholic Church was deliberately hijacked by pederasts over many years to supply them with vulnerable children for abuse. It makes the W0nderland bunch look like rank amateurs. I think it's a deeply sinister occurrence, and needs to be looked at in that light.

Rolfe.

Given the next report is due I took the plunge and finished reading pretty much the entire report and there is not one iota of evidence in the report that supports anything like your speculations.

It is sad fact that much of the abuse can be considered a result of the religious views of the people involved (that the children were sinners, that they came from sinful mothers and fathers and therefore were inherently bad because of this). Certainly there is no evidence that physical abuse was considered a problem simply because it was abuse; it was only when the result of that abuse would have looked bad to the outside world or threatened the standing of the churches and religious groups did the organisations' leaders step in, and then the evidence shows that took steps to protect first and foremost the organisation, and then the staff. There is scant evidence that they ever considered that the children may have need to be protected from anything bar their inherent wickedness.

 

[Cainkane1]

We all know about what's going on within the RCC. I'm now seeing people postulating that paedophiles have been exploiting the laxity of the church to allow them access to their desires.

What's the answer then?

We can all make a joke centered around the word "came" so let's not see any in respect of this subject please.

I'd say this. Most priests don't molest children. Some are pedophiles to began with. Some molest children because there is no other sexual outlet. Nuns do the same thing sometimes with girls and sometimes with boys.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

This had been mentioned in a separate thread some time ago and I gave this response. When I was in college we read a study about this in a sociology , but unfortunately I cannot remember what it was and so cannot cite it, so you'll just have to take this as anecdotal and not evidencial.

The study we saw (and granted it was only ONE study but it was a pretty large scale one) suggested that it is a matter of pedophiles becoming priests. That they fell into two categories: those who became priests specifically to have an opportunity to be around childen to molest them / those who thought becoming a priest and devoting themselves to God would cure them and take away their impulses.

However I do not think this accounts for all cases. I do think other factors come into play. The biggest one is that simply, power corrupts. There have been multiple sociological experiments done which show when people are put in a position of power over others, the desire to abuse that power can be very strong and is far more common than we'd like to think. It just can bring out the worst in people. Combine that with the sexual frustration of celibacy and I think that also is the reasoning behind some of these abuse cases.

 

[Darth Rotor]

This had been mentioned in a separate thread some time ago and I gave this response. When I was in college we read a study about this in a sociology , but unfortunately I cannot remember what it was and so cannot cite it, so you'll just have to take this as anecdotal and not evidencial.

The study we saw (and granted it was only ONE study but it was a pretty large scale one) suggested that it is a matter of pedophiles becoming priests. That they fell into two categories: those who became priests specifically to have an opportunity to be around childen to molest them / those who thought becoming a priest and devoting themselves to God would cure them and take away their impulses.

Would this generally apply to persons who had been fondled/molested/abused themselves? If not, how would they know about that option or opportunity?

However I do not think this accounts for all cases. I do think other factors come into play. The biggest one is that simply, power corrupts. There have been multiple sociological experiments done which show when people are put in a position of power over others, the desire to abuse that power can be very strong and is far more common than we'd like to think. It just can bring out the worst in people. Combine that with the sexual frustration of celibacy and I think that also is the reasoning behind some of these abuse cases.

Makes sense.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Would this generally apply to persons who had been fondled/molested/abused themselves? If not, how would they know about that option or opportunity?

Makes sense.

I'm not really sure what you're asking? I mean, who DOESN'T know that priests are in positions of authority and regularly work with children? It's not like that's a secret. Also, it's not like this only happens with priests. Any oganization which caters largely to children is going to be at risk of being infiltrated by pedophiles. The difference is that in most organizations, when pedophelia is uncovered, the offending sex offender is removed from service and not allowed to continue to work with children.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not really sure what you're asking? I mean, who DOESN'T know that priests are in positions of authority and regularly work with children? It's not like that's a secret.

I don't know what your experience has been in the RCC, but where I have seen it in operation, the clergy don't spend much time with kids: the laity do most of the instruction of children, CCD, etcetera. Yes, they are in authority, but what I was asking was different: why would a paedo make the assumption that this field presented extra opportunities, unless previously abused/molested by such a person? (Imitative behavior, and all that).

Also, it's not like this only happens with priests. Any oganization which caters largely to children is going to be at risk of being infiltrated by pedophiles.

I don't find your observation that the RCC caters largely to Children to be an accurate assessment. Is that comment based on the proliferation of Catholic Schools? Again, even in Catholic schools, now (maybe not true forty years ago) a significant portion of the teaching is done by lay teachers. Perhaps this varies by region or nation. My US centric view may skew my understanding of what you are saying.

The difference is that in most organizations, when pedophelia is uncovered, the offending sex offender is removed from service and not allowed to continue to work with children.

Aye. Therein lies the problem.

DR

 

[JWideman]

If it were that the celibacy requirement turned them into pedophiles, then only priests would be pedophiles. Pedophiles just go where the kids are. It probably helps that the church will protect them.

 

[Darat]

I'm not really sure what you're asking? I mean, who DOESN'T know that priests are in positions of authority and regularly work with children? ...snip....

Yes some do, but nothing like say teachers, sports-club coaches and so on, I wouldn't have that thought that RCC Priests would be top of any table for authority over and access to children.

 

[Bikewer]

Having once been a Catholic lad (and entirely unmolested...) I know that it's not easy to become a priest. Requires quite a dedicated round of training and education. Granted that it might happen in some cases, but I don't think a typical pedophile would (if Catholic) go through all that just to have access to children.
A more likely scenario, to my way of thinking, would be the devout young Catholic who knows he is having "unnatural" feelings and desires. He likely has some inkling that this is "wrong".....
The preisthood would look like a good refuge. Surrounded by a group of pious, god-fearing individuals who had renounced sexuality....The grace of God....All that stuff...

Only to find that all those naughty desires are still there.....

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I don't know what your experience has been in the RCC, but where I have seen it in operation, the clergy don't spend much time with kids: the laity do most of the instruction of children, CCD, etcetera. Yes, they are in authority, but what I was asking was different: why would a paedo make the assumption that this field presented extra opportunities, unless previously abused/molested by such a person? (Imitative behavior, and all that).

I don't find your observation that the RCC caters largely to Children to be an accurate assessment. Is that comment based on the proliferation of Catholic Schools? Again, even in Catholic schools, now (maybe not true forty years ago) a significant portion of the teaching is done by lay teachers. Perhaps this varies by region or nation. My US centric view may skew my understanding of what you are saying.

Aye. Therein lies the problem.

DR

well that's true, the Catholic Church does not cater to children as it's main perogative. But many, if not most of abuse cases have come out of institutions/groups which did specifically deal with children, like schools. And priests are in a position of authority and trust much higher than that of a regular teacher. So it makes sense that priests would join the vocation with the intention of working with children within the priesthood.

Although you also have to remember that for many people, priests had access to FAMILIES in a way that people like, say, teachers, do not. When my parents were growing up, for instance, their parents were very close to the parish priests and they were at their homes on a pretty regular basis.

Some abuse cases I have seen discussed in detail were children without fathers, whose mothers thought the priests had taken the child under their wing as father figures.

In the time period when most of these cases happened, 50s-70s, it was a lot more common for priests to have close relationships with families in which they had access to their children pretty regularly.

Also, priests are supposed to be infallable. And up until VERY recently, that was actually believed by most Catholics. I have heard SO many abuse stories in which children told their parents and were just not believed, and in many cases punished for saying such a thing about a priest.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Also, priests are supposed to be infallable.

An informal norm, or meme, no doubt, as the only explicitly infallible on sits in Rome, and that in a limited capacity.


But I understand your point: assumed of sound character ...

 

[Giraffe107]

Having once been a Catholic lad (and entirely unmolested...) I know that it's not easy to become a priest. Requires quite a dedicated round of training and education. Granted that it might happen in some cases, but I don't think a typical pedophile would (if Catholic) go through all that just to have access to children.
A more likely scenario, to my way of thinking, would be the devout young Catholic who knows he is having "unnatural" feelings and desires. He likely has some inkling that this is "wrong".....
The preisthood would look like a good refuge. Surrounded by a group of pious, god-fearing individuals who had renounced sexuality....The grace of God....All that stuff...

Only to find that all those naughty desires are still there.....

That was my thought too, without evidence of course, just speculation.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

However I do not think this accounts for all cases. I do think other factors come into play. The biggest one is that simply, power corrupts. There have been multiple sociological experiments done which show when people are put in a position of power over others, the desire to abuse that power can be very strong and is far more common than we'd like to think. It just can bring out the worst in people. Combine that with the sexual frustration of celibacy and I think that also is the reasoning behind some of these abuse cases.

It may be that power can corrupt, but I don't think power makes you a pedophile. I seriously doubt that these child molestation cases are due to a "desire to abuse that power."

 

[luchog]

It may be that power can corrupt, but I don't think power makes you a pedophile. I seriously doubt that these child molestation cases are due to a "desire to abuse that power."

What I find problematic in this discussion is the automatic assumption that child-molester == paedophile. That is not entirely true; and that belief very likely masks the true nature of the problem and greatly retards attempts at resolving it. I very seriously doubt that the number of paedophiles in the clergy is anywhere near what is claimed; nor anywhere near the majority of the child molesters. Just as with non-clerical child sexual abusers, children are not necessarily their preferences, merely targets of opportunity.

There is very little said about clergy, Catholic or Protestant, who have non-permitted sex with other adults; and it's often assumed that adults are always complicit in such acts. But very often, these adults are victims as well; and the clergy use the power of their office to manipulate or blackmail others into engaging in illicit sex. Children and teens seem to be victims more often; because they are more easily manipulated by authority figures, and are given a great deal of social visibility when discovered to be victims. The reason this is a problem for the RCC is that, as noted before, they're one of the few institutions that attempts to suppress information of these sorts of issues, rather than removing the abusers from their positions of authority.

As for why, again, paedophilia is not a sufficient explanation; and the proposal of a conscious desire to abuse power is a crude straw man. They are individuals who are under a great deal of stress, compounded with severe restrictions on sexual activity. The sex drive is a powerful one, and celibate clergy have no outlets for sexual expression, and few outlets for channelling that drive into other avenues. It requires a great deal of self-discipline to suppress that drive for a lifetime; and it's not for nothing that monasteries and convents gained a reputation as hotbeds of sexual promiscuity and deviancy in times past. Hamlet's command to Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery!" would, during Shakespeare's time, have had the clear connotation of prostitution rather than self-denial; tantamount to calling her a "whore" or "slut" in modern parlance. He was denigrating her for (an imagined) profligacy, rather than adjuring her to a life of purity and self-denial.

Dismissing the issue as "paedophiles looking for easy access to children" is to fatally ignore the true complexities of the problem, and guarantee its perpetuation. Interestingly, clerical celibacy is not scriptural, but is instead based on tradition, much of which was absorbed from pagan cultures. The bible actually recommends, if not requires, that ministers be married, with a wife and children who are positive examples of the faith, "For if he cannot lead his own family, how can he be expected to lead the body of Christ?"

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

What I find problematic in this discussion is the automatic assumption that child-molester == paedophile. That is not entirely true; and that belief very likely masks the true nature of the problem and greatly retards attempts at resolving it. I very seriously doubt that the number of paedophiles in the clergy is anywhere near what is claimed; nor anywhere near the majority of the child molesters. Just as with non-clerical child sexual abusers, children are not necessarily their preferences, merely targets of opportunity.

There is very little said about clergy, Catholic or Protestant, who have non-permitted sex with other adults; and it's often assumed that adults are always complicit in such acts. But very often, these adults are victims as well; and the clergy use the power of their office to manipulate or blackmail others into engaging in illicit sex. Children and teens seem to be victims more often; because they are more easily manipulated by authority figures, and are given a great deal of social visibility when discovered to be victims. The reason this is a problem for the RCC is that, as noted before, they're one of the few institutions that attempts to suppress information of these sorts of issues, rather than removing the abusers from their positions of authority.

As for why, again, paedophilia is not a sufficient explanation; and the proposal of a conscious desire to abuse power is a crude straw man. They are individuals who are under a great deal of stress, compounded with severe restrictions on sexual activity. The sex drive is a powerful one, and celibate clergy have no outlets for sexual expression, and few outlets for channelling that drive into other avenues. It requires a great deal of self-discipline to suppress that drive for a lifetime; and it's not for nothing that monasteries and convents gained a reputation as hotbeds of sexual promiscuity and deviancy in times past. Hamlet's command to Ophelia to "Get thee to a nunnery!" would, during Shakespeare's time, have had the clear connotation of prostitution rather than self-denial; tantamount to calling her a "whore" or "slut" in modern parlance. He was denigrating her for (an imagined) profligacy, rather than adjuring her to a life of purity and self-denial.

Dismissing the issue as "paedophiles looking for easy access to children" is to fatally ignore the true complexities of the problem, and guarantee its perpetuation. Interestingly, clerical celibacy is not scriptural, but is instead based on tradition, much of which was absorbed from pagan cultures. The bible actually recommends, if not requires, that ministers be married, with a wife and children who are positive examples of the faith, "For if he cannot lead his own family, how can he be expected to lead the body of Christ?"

though who knows what percentage of offenders this made up, I do agree that not all molesters were necessarily pedophiles, children just happened to be their easiest targets. I also think that goes to my point earlier that the corrupting nature of authority combined with sexual frustration is also a reason abuse occurred.

I don't know if I agree that they make up the majority of abusers compared with actual pedophiles, though it's certainly possible. But I do agree that this is a multifaceted problem that cannot just be boiled down to pedophilia alone.

 

[GlennB]

Pedophiles just go where the kids are.

But there must be much easier ways than becoming a priest, with all the duties and obligations that that brings.

 

[RobRoy]

But there must be much easier ways than becoming a priest, with all the duties and obligations that that brings.

I don’t know about this one way or the other, but I know that most seminaries pay for your education as part of the process of taking orders. Your duties are minor, including the saying of daily mass (1 hour), confessions (as needed), writing your talk for the next Sunday, and any financial committees that you’re required to sit on. Once you get past the education portion, and take your vows, it seems you’re pretty well taken care of and have a good deal of leisure time.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I don’t know about this one way or the other, but I know that most seminaries pay for your education as part of the process of taking orders. Your duties are minor, including the saying of daily mass (1 hour), confessions (as needed), writing your talk for the next Sunday, and any financial committees that you’re required to sit on. Once you get past the education portion, and take your vows, it seems you’re pretty well taken care of and have a good deal of leisure time.

You might want to ask a pastor of an active parish about that.

The picture you paint does not fit what little I know of the profession.

DR

 

[GlennB]

You might want to ask a pastor of an active parish about that.

The picture you paint does not fit what little I know of the profession.

DR

Agreed. I knew a number of Catholic priests via my wife's work back in England. They had multiple parishes, multiple services on some days, weddings, funerals, baptisms, home visits and so on. And these ones also taught at a Catholic boarding school and played a full part in school activities.

A superficial Google of "Catholic priest" +workload reveals this .