Unfair of the Church to hold this view? Unfair in what regard?

Gordon,

Some old abuse cases from the 80s with no indication of administrative mishandling hardly shows an ongoing procedural problem. Yesterday I heard of two stories one and Anglican and one a Catholic. Just because the things are still coming forward doesn’t mean tthe Catholic Church hasn’t responded since. The same goes for the Anglican Church.

Your original explanation for using a Catholic example was:
“I don’t justify Anglican misdeeds any more than I do Roman Catholic misdeeds. But the compounding problem is the subsequent response, which implicates not just the guilty party but the institution of which they’re a part.”

This revisitation of the issue gives no cogent indication of that type of thing here. Why then did you cite it?

“...I wonder if a lax attitude to discipline of priests who turn out to be pedophiles has a basis in theology?
If you really believe that a priest is a special class of person, who happens to be closer to God because God has made it so through the sacrament of ordination, then you would feel inclined to take no action on such matters....

The question is really a theological one. If your priest is ordained by God, how dare you question him? Even if he turns out to be a pedophile or serial abuser of some other sort. ”

Your theory would be relevant to victim reporting rather than lax disciplining. There are better explanations for slackness of Bishops at the time. The context is the Roman Catholic religion and the timing of these type of incidents.

The poor behaviour in relation to not taking appropriate action was typically on the part of Bishops. At the relevant times they referred the priests to treatment and then sent them to a new parish. They typically did not report them to the police (of course any astute priests would have confessed to them and they would be precluded from doing so).  In spite of your special class theory the Bishops are just as high in that special class and are required to act as shepherds and throwing the parishioners to the wolves so to speak is inconsistent with that role. They are responsible for the priests in their area and they are responsible to the laity. Irrespective of any ‘specialness’ of priests they clearly neglected their theologically required duty.

Better explanations that cannot be so easily debunked by the Bishop’s duty have been suggested. One of these is that the Bishops have taken on a bureaucratic role to such a degree that they lose sight of their theological role. With all the day to day administration they acted like business managers who aimed to minimize the financial loss to the organization and viewed sexual abuse as a mental health problem rather than a theological issue. Clearly in the most recent decades business managers would take a different approach for these types of matters but that is not when the Bishops were doing their thing.

That raises the historical context. Statistically the Roman Catholic abuse thing surged in the 60s to 80s and the incidents we keep hearing about typically almost exclusively derive from that time period.  Then covering up was the way to go while today full disclosure is the approach required. It is not ideal to select ‘managers’ from one industry and condemn their approach in the 60s to 80s because it doesn’t conform with contemporary standards when it was the norm at the time the behaviour occurred.

Likewise the issue of having sex with parishioners including minors must be viewed in context. There is reason to believe that the compelling gravity of some offences wasn’t appreciated by the Bishops. When I was at university in the late 80s Kinsey’s research on orgasmic response of infants was presented as just being a point of scientific interest and demonstrating how early some aspects of sexuality develop. There was no contemporary response by the lecturer or the students. By the mid 90s at University (and elsewhere) the situation was radically different. An example of an adult giving oral sex to a child was cited and we were all horrified and concerned about the child. Things changed. If Kinsey did his research today arrests would follow. The point is that the gravity of the problem was not appreciated at that time period by anyone and that is when the Bishops were doing the wrong thing. It was a time of sexual liberation, free love, and paedophile rights groups marched in the streets (in the 70s). Times have changed for all but a minority. eg.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070710185136/http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/ophocounton.html
http://www.nambla.org/

Also noteworthy is the professional opinion in the social sciences at the time. In the extremely liberal time in both society and the Church secularized Bishops viewed it as a mental health issue only. The gravity of the sin was not considered. Bishops would hand over an abuser for treatment and they would come back ‘cured’. Clearly if they delegated to secular professionals these days the outcome would be different.

Your theory is more relevant to reporting of the offences than the actions of the Bishops. That is why we are hearing about old offences now. Clearly things have flipped around but it probably concerned many victims at the time that they would not be believed. This is apparently true of victims generally (perhaps other than clerical) but at that time in history they would have felt particularly inhibited.

How do we stop paedophile priests (all denominations) from getting at victims? How do we detect a possible nuance for this activity before it happens? Are the conditions in which various priests living conducive to this activity?

I suspect that, in the case of Roman Catholic priests, that a condition of expected celebacy combined with being placed with vulnerable young people is an explosive combination. Sexual frustration finds an outlet obviously.

In the case of other priests, eg Anglican, I suppose a similar cause. Sexual repression needing an outlet, unfortunately and tragically causing great damage to innocent children.

This link: Glimpse into the mind of a paedophile gives us some insight. Don’t read it if you may be offended.

In a chillingly frank account, a former Roman Catholic priest, promoted 20 years ago by Roger M. Mahony, recently described his decades-long career as a pedophile, including his sexual tastes and how he groomed his young victims for abuse.

What’s the solution? This link from a pentacostal viewpoint has this to say:

Paedophile Priests - What to do, what to do?

The biggest culprit in this entire problem is the lie of celibacy. Pastors and teachers of the gospel were not told in the Word of God to never get married nor have sexual relations with a wife. In fact, in I Timothy 3:2, Paul tells Timothy that bishops of the church may have a wife. That is because it would cause exactly what is happening now if ministers were to abstain from sex. Priests are brought up surrounded by men in seminaries, they are kept separate from women, and they develop ties to children who are training in the priesthood or being brought up in the faith. Because all their sexual energy and tension is bottled up for so many years, it is released in sins against self (masturbation) and sins against others (child molestation, solicitation of prostitutes, homosexuality, pornography rings, rape, etc.).

Unfortunately, the Catholic church will not change the lie of celibacy, and that is exactly the way Satan wants it. The more human souls he can pull into this religion, the more souls he has a chance to lock up in eternal hellfire.

Contents deleted (thought inexpedient.)

Ken,

Interesting attempt to evangelise us non-Pentecostal heathens.

You realize that Anglican Ministers are not celibate so I don’t know why they would be considered sexually repressed by fundamentalists?

If celibacy was the criteria (even though we keep hearing most paedophilia occurs within families) then it should be a uniquely Catholic problem (outside of the media reports) and the following should not be found:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html

See also this rather strong defence by a non Catholic

http://zenit.org/article-3922?l=english

That said to blame the characteristics of a group for misbehaviour is often said to indicate bigotry. I’ll leave it to you to consider whether that is relevant.

Have you considered that like any other job which can involve contact with children some people join celibate professions to achieve their ends?

Hi Michael,

So are you saying that celebate priests are not committing paedophilia because they are sexually repressed? Or are they doing so because of this? Why are they committing paedophilia, in your mind? Have you a good analysis for us?

Anglical ministers may be sexually repressed although they are married, possibly. I have noticed that some Anglican mininsters are homosexual also, but that is beside the point.

I guess the role of a church leader enables them to exploit young people. It is a position of power and trust. (I am not saying that other sections of the community do not commit the same sin, I never said that.)

But Catholics have to deal with the problem without making excuses. You must be careful not to be like the Bishops who covered up the issues. They hired public relations teams and lawyers to cover up the scandals in the USA , and that was not a good Christian approach.

And I wouldnt call Catholics ‘heathens’, although there are a lot of pagan ideas in the religion, from way back. I sugested to the Pope when he was out here that he try to get with scripture, and leave the traditions behind. I havnt received an answer yet, though.

Gordon, I’m still waiting for you to clarify this question of yours to me:

“Do you think this is an unfair view for them to hold?”

Who are you referring to by “them”? What do you mean by “unfair”?

A Canadian Anglican diocese disolved because of child abuse.
Scandals in Adeleide, Brisbane and Sydney Abglican dioceses.
A Governor General forced to retire early.

I don’t think people who live in glass houses should really throw stones.

Ken
The so-called “lie of celibacy” which you promoted in your post (via the pentecostals - which, I might add, are getting a hammering on another thread) would also be the same lie which St Paul promoted in Corinthians. 

Those priests who committed such terrible crimes, I am sure would also have committed them regardless of their status.  Bachelor, married or priest. The issue is not celibacy.  The issue is sin, which we all fall prey to.

If we use the argument that celibacy is the cause of priests committing sexual offenses, then the same argument could be used against monogamy in marriage.  If a married man commits a sexual offense, then marriage and its requirement for monogamy just isn’t working for him.

And Ken, you won’t get a reply from the Pope.  He has too much humility and intelligence to respond to provocation.

If you were to read any of his books, you might be very surprised as to his knowledge of scripture and his great love of the Lord.  In fact, a pentecostal pastor gave a book review on his latest book, and told protestants to put aside all prejudices and urged them to read it.  He claimed the book was one of the best Christian books he had ever read.  But I guess, Anglicans are a little wary of Pentecostals as well, so that probably want sway you.

I agree that celibacy doesn’t cause ministers to be involved in sexual abuse. There has been cases of sexual abuse from people in other professions than just church ministry. However, I would love to see Catholic ministers to have the choice to be married.

Hi Donna,

Is the book you’re referring to titled “Jesus of Nazareth”?

I’m reading it now.  It’s taking me a while because it’s so full of good things that I have to stop every so often and think on what I’ve read.

Hi Janice
Yes that is the book I was referring to.  I agree with you that it is a book that you have to read and ponder.  I know of a protestant minister who was reading Ratzinger’s books for years and didn’t realise who he was.  He was shocked when he found out that he was a Catholic theologian.
Donna

Sheldon, why do you assume that all Catholic ministry is exclusively ordianed. As a catholic layman I minister and witnesss everyday!

Clerical marriage brings its own temptations and problems.....divorce, adultery ansd there are two Church of England vicars ( both marrried) currently up on child pornopgraphy charges.

Furthermore as St Paul states the married man can be divided in his full loyalty to the Lord

Hi Ken,
Yes I’m saying they are not committing paedophilia because they are sexually repressed. If that were the case they would be statistically overrepresented in real life paedophilia not just media reports. Those priests who are committing paedophilia do so because they find children sexually attractive. If they married they would be just like all those married paedophiles who prey on their own children and they would be less likely to be detected. In some Pentecostal Churches people refrain from sex outside of marriage and may not get married as soon as the sexual organs are functioning. I have a friend in that situation who I would confidently let supervise my young children. Celibacy will no more make him a paedophile than it made Paul a paedophile. As Donna said the issue is sin.

If you want more depth on paedophilia I can’t offer very much. I believe it is a psychosexual developmental disorder which fundamentally disorders people and unless treated very early would be very difficult to treat. However as most psychologists apparently don’t consider molestation inherently harmful for children and the American Psychiatric Association recently temporarily ceased to classify it as a psychiatric disorder (which would logically bring it in line with the classification system adopted in 1973) my view may not accord with professional consensus in the social sciences.

The issue is sin. Married heterosexuals all associate with attractive people of the opposite sex but many choose to avoid extra-marital affairs. Likewise paedophiles are not forced to take advantage of a pre-pubescent child just because they are attracted to them. Those who seek out positions where they can do so and who act out their sexual tendencies are clearly more open to the sin then those who don’t. A number of people have been arrested who apparently get their jollies from looking at kiddie nudity when they are caught downloading it. I would wager that many of them, whilst clearly displaying a tendency, don’t actually molest children. I would be surprised if you didn’t share my suspicion.

“I guess the role of a church leader enables them to exploit young people. It is a position of power and trust. (I am not saying that other sections of the community do not commit the same sin, I never said that.) “

I agree completely and, just like those paedophiles who become teachers or scout masters, some paedophiles become priests to obtain that advantage in getting their way. To suggest they became paedophiles because they were priests is putting the cart before the horse.

I agree that excuses shouldn’t be made for such behaviour (mindful of the context of media virtually singling out Catholic priests and misleading people into a belief that they were overrepresented in a horrific crime) but the implausibility of celibacy making people sexually attracted to children isn’t about making excuses.

Sheldon, why do you assume that all Catholic ministry is exclusively ordianed. As a catholic layman I minister and witnesss everyday!

Your right. My bad.