Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes you see and hear about things that make you quite proud to be an atheist (or at least not associated with the organization that this article was generated about).
What are people's thoughts on this? Is this one of those "Do as I say, not as I do" things? This has apparently gone on for a very VERY long time and since the religious hierarchy has always "covered" for these people so they have been "untouchable" or above being scrutinized for inappropriate behavior they have performed heinous acts and gotten away with it. Why is it so common to hear about Priests that are pedophiles?
If priests weren't required to be celibate I think if would stop a lot of it.
They could openly have sex with women instead of targeting children whom they think they can keep quite.
And the church, all the way to the Pope didn't pretend it is not a problem and have a systemic mindset that these predators must be protected from responsibility and hidden.
Priests have to keep their sexuality hidden. Just because a priest is not supposed to have (illicit) sex with a woman, does not mean that the next logical stop is to have illicit, abusive sex with a child.
Prisoners often engage in homosexual relations because they have no choice. Priests have a choice, and many choose children.
My theory on this is that the celibate priesthood attracts people who are uncomfortable with their sexuality. Men who know that they are attracted to children (or other men) know that it is wrong, and they seek a solution to this. By entering the priesthood, they are looking for an environment that will forbid them their deviant sexuality, and support them in suppressing it.
It obviously does not work that way, but I suspect that might be the plan for some men.
I think that this also holds true for homosexuality. Not that I think it is deviant or wrong, but some do, even today. In the past few generations, if you struggled with homosexuality, maybe entering the priesthood for enforced celibacy was a way of dealing with your 'sinful' desires.
In summary, the celibate priesthood probably holds attraction for those fleeing some sort of deviant sexuality. But it is really not an option to suppress ones sexuality for decades, and the deviance sneaks out anyway. But they would still be child molesters if they were not priests.
If priests weren't required to be celibate I think if would stop a lot of it.
They could openly have sex with women instead of targeting children whom they think they can keep quite.
I've thought about that, but I have my doubts that it'd solve anything. If a man has a fetish for children, could a woman ever really be a substitute? I think the real problem is the leaders of the Church who'd rather cover for the criminals than protect the innocent.
If priests weren't required to be celibate I think if would stop a lot of it.
They could openly have sex with women instead of targeting children whom they think they can keep quite.
I see this argument a lot, but is there any evidence to back it up? I always assumed that pedophilia was its own pathology. Does denying heterosexual males intercourse with women really lead to pedophilia? Maybe instead there is something about the priesthood that attracts pedophiles?
Don't know the answers, just curious.
EDIT: wow in the time it took me to write this, not one but two posts making the same point!
I have no evidence. I just think that some of the priests wouldn't have taken to abusing children if they were allowed to have normal sex.
My thinking was that it is easier to keep a child quiet about the act than it is to keep an adult quiet about it.
I also think that the idea that men who have problems with normal sex in the first place may be attracted to the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement makes sense too.
I have no evidence. I just think that some of the priests wouldn't have taken to abusing children if they were allowed to have normal sex.
My thinking was that it is easier to keep a child quiet about the act than it is to keep an adult quiet about it.
.
I think there are enough women who would keep quiet about it that a priest could have heterosexual intercourse.
if nothing else, there is always anonymous prostitution.
as a heterosexual male, I simply do not see pedophilia being a reasonable option, even for a priest having difficulty with celibacy. There are so many options first. masturbation, pornography, prostitutes, one night stand hookups. A real woman. A man. All choices to consider before kids.
So I have always assumed the pedophilia proclivity proceeds priestly promises.
I think there are enough women who would keep quiet about it that a priest could have heterosexual intercourse.
if nothing else, there is always anonymous prostitution.
as a heterosexual male, I simply do not see pedophilia being a reasonable option, even for a priest having difficulty with celibacy. There are so many options first. masturbation, pornography, prostitutes, one night stand hookups. A real woman. A man. All choices to consider before kids.
So I have always assumed the pedophilia proclivity proceeds priestly promises.
I agree with your thoughts. And to be covered up by so many for so long is disgusting. By people that act as God's representatives.
I've thought about that, but I have my doubts that it'd solve anything. If a man has a fetish for children, could a woman ever really be a substitute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nbbphh
I see this argument a lot, but is there any evidence to back it up? I always assumed that pedophilia was its own pathology. Does denying heterosexual males intercourse with women really lead to pedophilia? Maybe instead there is something about the priesthood that attracts pedophiles?
Don't know the answers, just curious.
EDIT: wow in the time it took me to write this, not one but two posts making the same point!
Not surprising more people make the same point, its a very open question and a good one....
....what is missing in your point is that we do not know enough about paedophilia to know that the priests in question were paedophiles BEFORE they became priests. We do not know enough to know if attraction to children is something you are born with, or can be made develop as a “disorder”, or can it be both in different people.
In fact, I have talked to a hell of a lot of psychologists about paedophilia and most of them can not even agree if paedophiles HAVE something that needs to be cured or LACK something that the rest of us have!!!
For the record (tangent) I think it is the latter. I think we are all able to recognise the beauty, even the sexual beauty, of a person regardless of their age. I think it is just that most of us have blockages, moral, cultural and other types, that compel us towards treating children sexually as being wrong. I think pedophiles lack whatever that is, which is an important distinction to thinking they HAVE something that needs removing or curing. Just an opinion though, I have no data to back it up.
But that is how small our data is right now. Yet I think you would agree that the first step in curing ANYTHING is to know if the patient has something or lacks something… after all some conditions that people HAVE…. have exactly the same symptoms as when a patient lacks some vitamin or mineral or hormone. A doctor can not treat if he does not know which it is… so why should a psychologist??
So your points above seem to assume a little that the priest is already a pedo… so of course being allowed have sex with women is likely not going to curb that…
… but what if the suppressions of ones sexuality through concepts like chastity is what is causing disorders such as attraction to children in the first place?
In THAT case Annie53 does have a good point after all…. like if you stem the flow of a stream of water, it simply flows in another direction. Get rid of the blockage, and it flows correctly again.
There are no simple answers, and paedophilia is not only something we need to learn more about… but it is also very hard to study due to it’s furtive nature making it something we find it hard to learn about.
Whatever the answers though, one thing we know is that our drive for sex is one of the most powerful drives we have… and I can not believe that stemming and suppressing it can be a good thing… so as we learn more I think we WILL find chastity is a lot more damaging than we think… but that is just my expectation and I have minimal data to back it up. My expectation is that you are all right. The priesthood attracts some sickos, while the act of sexual suppression in concepts like chastity warps some others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.