Why Get Mad at Bill Donahue?

[quote]GorillaMon wrote:
Weeelllll…clearly that goes against the norm. One can only sensibly conclude then, it’s a Catholic priest problem then.

OR

Perhaps, it’s just an unfortunate by-product of living a certain lifestyle/availability of boys. [/quote]

But, the majority of people in the Catholic Church that abused children…weren’t even priests. There was more abuse by volunteers it looks like. So, it looks like a human problem.

If it’s the second, then the statistics still don’t make sense because dads still have a higher rate than the priest do, they double clergy percentages.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.[/quote]

Why not google it yourself if you care so much? It took me about 5 seconds to find this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
[/quote]

It’s up to BC to google it.

Not sure why you even brought this up.[/quote]

I just gave you a link and this is your response. It’s not a fight between elementary school kids. The link is relevant to your demand. Read it.
[/quote]

?

No you asked me why I didn’t google it myself, and I told you why. WTF are you talking about?

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Right. I see. When it benefits your argument, you get to climb up on that horse and demand proof of other’s assertions. But when it comes to your argument, well, you said it was an opinion, and then you get to just keep repeating the same shit in the face of ever mounting evidence that every premise your opinion is based upon is false. Okay.
[/quote]

Nope, I explained why I thought celibacy could be a contributing factor, you just don’t agree.

What church has the most sex abuse is purely a quantitative measurement. So no, what you are asserting I’m doing is untrue.[/quote]

Why not google it yourself if you care so much? It took me about 5 seconds to find this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html
[/quote]

It’s up to BC to google it.

Not sure why you even brought this up.[/quote]

I just gave you a link and this is your response. It’s not a fight between elementary school kids. The link is relevant to your demand. Read it.
[/quote]

?

No you asked me why I didn’t google it myself, and I told you why. WTF are you talking about?[/quote]

You. Wanted. Evidence. For. B. C’s. Assertion.

I. Provided. It. To. You.

You. Are. Welcome.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing. [/quote]

The same is true of you. The only way you will even consider celibacy to be a factor is if you are given a study that could never be done.

Look, I doubt every person to enter the seminary is able to handle the vow of celibacy very well.

Those that don’t could perhaps lash out in other ways. I don’t see this as a stretch, you do end of story.

[/quote]

No, see, I don’t need any more studies. I’ve provided evidence in spades to back up my claims, while you have provided…your opinion that you formed from watching a prison documentary. The rate of Catholic molester priests to regular joe plumber molesters is pretty much the same. On top of that, the rate of Catholic priests who are celibate and DO NOT molest is ASTRONOMICALLY high compared to those who do. So calling this the root of the problem makes no sense.

But I know none of that will stop you.
[/quote]

I called it a contributing factor.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing. [/quote]

The same is true of you. The only way you will even consider celibacy to be a factor is if you are given a study that could never be done.

Look, I doubt every person to enter the seminary is able to handle the vow of celibacy very well.

Those that don’t could perhaps lash out in other ways. I don’t see this as a stretch, you do end of story.

[/quote]

No, see, I don’t need any more studies. I’ve provided evidence in spades to back up my claims, while you have provided…your opinion that you formed from watching a prison documentary. The rate of Catholic molester priests to regular joe plumber molesters is pretty much the same. On top of that, the rate of Catholic priests who are celibate and DO NOT molest is ASTRONOMICALLY high compared to those who do. So calling this the root of the problem makes no sense.

But I know none of that will stop you.
[/quote]

I called it a contributing factor.
[/quote]

Okay, your turn to defend your position:

How is this a contributing factor when, statistically, married fathers are the group most likely, far more likely than celibate Catholic priests, to abuse children?

Gotta go to bed now so can’t reply right away.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Like I said, your bias is too strong and blatantly obvious. No matter how much information you are provided with, you are not going to be satisfied. You’ll just keep demanding one more thing. [/quote]

The same is true of you. The only way you will even consider celibacy to be a factor is if you are given a study that could never be done.

Look, I doubt every person to enter the seminary is able to handle the vow of celibacy very well.

Those that don’t could perhaps lash out in other ways. I don’t see this as a stretch, you do end of story.

[/quote]

No, see, I don’t need any more studies. I’ve provided evidence in spades to back up my claims, while you have provided…your opinion that you formed from watching a prison documentary. The rate of Catholic molester priests to regular joe plumber molesters is pretty much the same. On top of that, the rate of Catholic priests who are celibate and DO NOT molest is ASTRONOMICALLY high compared to those who do. So calling this the root of the problem makes no sense.

But I know none of that will stop you.
[/quote]

I called it a contributing factor.
[/quote]

Okay, your turn to defend your position:

How is this a contributing factor when, statistically, married fathers are the group most likely, far more likely than celibate Catholic priests, to abuse children?

Gotta go to bed now so can’t reply right away.
[/quote]

If this is true, you should have said this at the beginning.

If most of the ones committing crimes AREN’T celibate, then no it’s not true.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?[/quote]

Not everyone plans from a young age to go into the priesthood. Most people assume marriage until they figure out otherwise.

Even if they did plan on going into the seminary, most seem to still have girlfriends before.

Really? I visited three seminaries (not seminarians, but the school) and pretty much everyone of those dudes has a wife (if they are becoming deacons), had a fiance before going into seminary or had a girlfriend. I know three brothers that all had/have fiances back in their home town hoping that their vocation is marriage and come back to marry them.

I am discerning the priesthood, and I just broke up with my fifth girlfriend since discerning, and just last night I took a woman on a date and to go dancing.

The dioceses vocation director (basically does all the work for Bishop Olmsted when it comes to getting dudes into the seminary, getting them placed in parishes, &c.) had a fiance, a business, &c. when he entered the seminary at 32-33.

His good friend, my priest at college had an Engineering job and a fiance before becoming a priest.

Most of these guys don’t plan on going into the seminary or priesthood. Even if they do, they realize that it’s not a sure thing until they get their holy orders, so most do spend almost the same amount of time dating as normal men.

Oh, and no one is perfect, one of the most persuasive priests St. Augustine (a bishop of Hippo, which is pretty importanto) had a kid with his concubine/girlfriend before he came back to the Church.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

If they’re planning on entering the seminary, what sort of sexual history could they possibly have?

I doubt most of these guys were out at bars trying to pick up women before entering. [/quote]

I know you really really really want to cram this square peg into your round worldview any way you can, but it’s not going to happen.

First, it doesn’t matter if what you say is even true, because it doesn’t affect my point in the post I was replying to.

Second, it’s not true. New oridinands come from all kinds of backgrounds, many of them quite a bit more wild than you might expect. See Father Corapi for one easy example. Possibly not the best example due to what happened to him recently, but it goes to show that priests are often a lot more experienced and world-wise than they get credit for.

But if it makes you more comfortable you can continue to do what you and other posters have been doing throughout this thread, just making shit up that fits with what you want to believe and then repeating it as gospel. [/quote]

He’s not Father Corapi anymore, he’s Black SheepDog!

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

You’ll never be satisfied. Can you not see how strong your bias is? You are just shutting off fact after pure fact, refusing to see anything other than what you believe.The initial assertion was that new seminarians were mainly kids with practically no life experience upon which to base their decision to become a priest.

I have demonstrated this is not true.

Okay? [/quote]

Life experience includes relationships with women. So no I disagree.[/quote]

Well, I just talked to Father Paul this morning. He gave me some interesting facts about the men from our diocese going into the seminary:

  • 95% had 1 or more girlfriends.
  • 65% had girlfriends for the majority of their dating lives.
  • 42% were engaged.
  • 16% were engaged more than once.
  • 71% had relations (a.k.a. sexual) with women within two years.
  • 5% discerned priesthood before dating.
  • Most common reason for entering seminary: Tried dating already, have doubts so they want to make sure they aren’t supposed to be priests before going back to dating and getting married.

Sounds like these boys know how to dance.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I posted about this years ago. There was a study that concluded celibacy was the main factor contributing to the problem.

Here is how it works. Most young men who go into seminary school are teenagers who either have none or very little experience with sex. So they are not at a mature level of development when it comes to sex and they are not going to develop any further because of celibacy.

Or in other words, the ability to get laid requires certain social skills (a.k.a. game)that aren’t going to develop if you aren’t out there trying to get some and to get a girl requires more skills.

Years later they may be grown men but, when it comes to sex they are stuck at an immature level of development. As priests they are in a position where they command respect and admiration from youngsters whose level of sexual maturity is on a par with their own.

It’s easier for them to socialize with boys and 14-15 year old boys are near the same level of development. So that is why 14-15 year old boys seem to be preferred.

[/quote]

Sifu, I usually completely agree with just about everything you write here, but I’m sorry to say this is just wrong. I corrected Rohnyn when he made a very similar statement a while back and he never conceded even though I provided hard evidence. I will do so here, too. Main thing, the average ordinand is in his 30’s, a college graduate, many with post-graduate certifications, and have lived more than enough of a life to be mature enough to make the decision to commit to a life of service and celibacy.

Also, if you are going to mention a study “concluded” that celibacy was the issue, I am going to ask to see that study. I’ve not once ever seen anyone produce anything that even approached such a conclusion, and I’ve searched for one.

Here are the 2011 statistics:

http://4thepriests.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/typical-new-american-priest-matches-the-age-of-jesus-in-his-ministry-years/

the median age of ordinands is 31; the mean age, 34
for diocesan ordinands, the mean age is 30; for religious ordinands, it is 36

the typical diocesan ordinand has lived in his diocese for 15 years
69% are white, 15% are Latino, 10% are Asian, and 5% are African-American
33% were foreign born, with the typical foreign-born ordinand entering the US in 1998 at age 25; the most typical countries of origin were Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, and Vietnam
52% of religious ordinands are foreign-born
8% are converts, with the typical convert entering the Church at age 25
60% had completed college before entering the seminary
47% attended a Catholic elementary school, 39% attended a Catholic high school, and 39% attended a Catholic college; 4% were homeschooled
34% have a relative who was a priest or religious
in 82% of cases, both parents were Catholic
37% have four or more siblings; 16% have three siblings
94% had a full-time job before entering the seminary
8% served in the military, and 19% had a parent with a career in the military
66% were encouraged by a parish priest to consider a vocation; 42% were encouraged by their mother, and 27% by their father
52% were discouraged by a parent from considering a vocation; 20% were discouraged by a priest, and 8% were discouraged by a religious
ordinands typically first began to consider the priesthood at 16
48% took part in a parish youth group, 30% participated in Boy Scouts, and 23% participated in the Knights of Columbus before entering the seminary
21% attended World Youth Day, and 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville high school youth conference
71% served as altar servers, and 55% served as readers at Mass
70% prayed the Rosary and 65% took part in Eucharistic adoration before entering the seminary

Here are the 2010 stats, and trust me, they have not changed that much over the years. You are welcome to try and prove me wrong, though, if you don’t think so:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the_priests_of_2010/

â?¢ the average age of ordinands is 37; the median age of diocesan ordinands is 33
â?¢ 10% are converts
â?¢ 37% have a relative who is a priest or religious
â?¢ 55% have more than two siblings
â?¢ 49% attended a Catholic elementary school; 39% attended a Catholic college
â?¢ 60% completed college before entering the seminary; 92% held full-time jobs
â?¢ 78% were encouraged by a priest to enter the seminary
â?¢ 50% were discouraged by parents or other family members from considering the seminary; 15% were discouraged by priests, while 4% were discouraged by religious
â?¢ 19% attended a World Youth Day; 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville High School Youth Conference
â?¢ 67% regularly prayed the Rosary before entering seminary; 65% regularly took part in Eucharistic adoration
â?¢ the seminarians typically began to consider a priestly vocation when they were 18

[/quote]

It has been about ten years since I heard about this study. So I can’t remember where to look it up. It did make sense if you consider that what is happening is the result of a cause and effect relationship where if certain conditions occur the chances of a possible outcome are increased.

The good news is it’s not just celibacy alone that is causing the problem. That there are other conditions that have to be met and even then it’s not a guaranteed outcome. So you can still have some faith in your priest.

In those statistics you posted there wasn’t much information I could use. For example, average or median age of all priests when entering seminary is just an averaging from the youngest to the oldest. It doesn’t tell us how many are 18 or 19, still developing and even amongst that group there will be individuals who are more or less developed than their peers. But the last one does state that typically they begin to consider the priesthood around age 18.
So I’m not wrong in stating that there are some youngsters entering seminary.

In order to disprove the hypothesis that celibacy is what is leading to the problem you will first have to explain why this problem isn’t just as rampant in other Christian denominations that don’t require celibacy. Then you will need to explain how it would not affect the sexual development of an adolescent. Or if you can’t do that, you will have to come up with an explanation as to why development doesn’t matter.

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
My friends sister became a nun and she remained a virgin all throughout college.

Going to college first before entering the seminary doesn’t mean anything.[/quote]

How ugly IS she?[/quote]

You tell me.

Her sister (my friend) openly spoke about her being a virgin.

Edit: she is not ugly.[/quote]

Mmmmmk, I reckon I’d hit it if I had to…

Do you know how to get a Nun pregnant?

[quote]Sifu wrote:
In order to disprove the hypothesis that celibacy is what is leading to the problem you will first have to explain why this problem isn’t just as rampant in other Christian denominations that don’t require celibacy.[/quote]

It isn’t? Do you have a source that shows that the rates are higher in the Catholic Church?

I don’t understand this comment, so I will refrain from comment.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I posted about this years ago. There was a study that concluded celibacy was the main factor contributing to the problem.

Here is how it works. Most young men who go into seminary school are teenagers who either have none or very little experience with sex. So they are not at a mature level of development when it comes to sex and they are not going to develop any further because of celibacy.

Or in other words, the ability to get laid requires certain social skills (a.k.a. game)that aren’t going to develop if you aren’t out there trying to get some and to get a girl requires more skills.

Years later they may be grown men but, when it comes to sex they are stuck at an immature level of development. As priests they are in a position where they command respect and admiration from youngsters whose level of sexual maturity is on a par with their own.

It’s easier for them to socialize with boys and 14-15 year old boys are near the same level of development. So that is why 14-15 year old boys seem to be preferred.

[/quote]

Sifu, I usually completely agree with just about everything you write here, but I’m sorry to say this is just wrong. I corrected Rohnyn when he made a very similar statement a while back and he never conceded even though I provided hard evidence. I will do so here, too. Main thing, the average ordinand is in his 30’s, a college graduate, many with post-graduate certifications, and have lived more than enough of a life to be mature enough to make the decision to commit to a life of service and celibacy.

Also, if you are going to mention a study “concluded” that celibacy was the issue, I am going to ask to see that study. I’ve not once ever seen anyone produce anything that even approached such a conclusion, and I’ve searched for one.

Here are the 2011 statistics:

http://4thepriests.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/typical-new-american-priest-matches-the-age-of-jesus-in-his-ministry-years/

the median age of ordinands is 31; the mean age, 34
for diocesan ordinands, the mean age is 30; for religious ordinands, it is 36

the typical diocesan ordinand has lived in his diocese for 15 years
69% are white, 15% are Latino, 10% are Asian, and 5% are African-American
33% were foreign born, with the typical foreign-born ordinand entering the US in 1998 at age 25; the most typical countries of origin were Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, and Vietnam
52% of religious ordinands are foreign-born
8% are converts, with the typical convert entering the Church at age 25
60% had completed college before entering the seminary
47% attended a Catholic elementary school, 39% attended a Catholic high school, and 39% attended a Catholic college; 4% were homeschooled
34% have a relative who was a priest or religious
in 82% of cases, both parents were Catholic
37% have four or more siblings; 16% have three siblings
94% had a full-time job before entering the seminary
8% served in the military, and 19% had a parent with a career in the military
66% were encouraged by a parish priest to consider a vocation; 42% were encouraged by their mother, and 27% by their father
52% were discouraged by a parent from considering a vocation; 20% were discouraged by a priest, and 8% were discouraged by a religious
ordinands typically first began to consider the priesthood at 16
48% took part in a parish youth group, 30% participated in Boy Scouts, and 23% participated in the Knights of Columbus before entering the seminary
21% attended World Youth Day, and 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville high school youth conference
71% served as altar servers, and 55% served as readers at Mass
70% prayed the Rosary and 65% took part in Eucharistic adoration before entering the seminary

Here are the 2010 stats, and trust me, they have not changed that much over the years. You are welcome to try and prove me wrong, though, if you don’t think so:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/the_priests_of_2010/

�¢?�¢ the average age of ordinands is 37; the median age of diocesan ordinands is 33
�¢?�¢ 10% are converts
�¢?�¢ 37% have a relative who is a priest or religious
�¢?�¢ 55% have more than two siblings
�¢?�¢ 49% attended a Catholic elementary school; 39% attended a Catholic college
�¢?�¢ 60% completed college before entering the seminary; 92% held full-time jobs
�¢?�¢ 78% were encouraged by a priest to enter the seminary
�¢?�¢ 50% were discouraged by parents or other family members from considering the seminary; 15% were discouraged by priests, while 4% were discouraged by religious
�¢?�¢ 19% attended a World Youth Day; 8% attended a Franciscan University of Steubenville High School Youth Conference
�¢?�¢ 67% regularly prayed the Rosary before entering seminary; 65% regularly took part in Eucharistic adoration
�¢?�¢ the seminarians typically began to consider a priestly vocation when they were 18

[/quote]

It has been about ten years since I heard about this study. So I can’t remember where to look it up. It did make sense if you consider that what is happening is the result of a cause and effect relationship where if certain conditions occur the chances of a possible outcome are increased.

The good news is it’s not just celibacy alone that is causing the problem. That there are other conditions that have to be met and even then it’s not a guaranteed outcome. So you can still have some faith in your priest.

In those statistics you posted there wasn’t much information I could use. For example, average or median age of all priests when entering seminary is just an averaging from the youngest to the oldest. It doesn’t tell us how many are 18 or 19, still developing and even amongst that group there will be individuals who are more or less developed than their peers. But the last one does state that typically they begin to consider the priesthood around age 18.
So I’m not wrong in stating that there are some youngsters entering seminary.

In order to disprove the hypothesis that celibacy is what is leading to the problem you will first have to explain why this problem isn’t just as rampant in other Christian denominations that don’t require celibacy. Then you will need to explain how it would not affect the sexual development of an adolescent. Or if you can’t do that, you will have to come up with an explanation as to why development doesn’t matter.

[/quote]

Read the last couple of pages of my posts. I’ve provided ample evidence that the rate of criminal sexual activity against minors is no higher in the Catholic Church than in other denominations, that it is actually HIGHER among married men. You and the others who are alleging that celibacy is part of or the root of the problem have so far provided nothing but opinion or hearsay.

As far as the mean/average age issue, with roughly 500 new ordinands entering seminary a year, for the average age to be in the early to mid thirties, a LARGE amount of seminarians are going to have to be entering in their mid to late 20’s and well beyond that, especially keeping in mind that no one under 18 is going to be entering seminary. That most begin contemplating entering seminary at 18, when the process of discernment and acceptance to seminary often takes years in the first place, is more supportive of my argument than yours.

Further, if you want me to dig deeper, I can and will provide the raw numbers for the ages of new seminarians. I don’t feel like digging for them again, but I have found them in the past when I started a celibacy thread a while back and trust me, they do not support what you are suggesting. The vast majority of seminarians are college graduates or of that age. In what weird, backwards world could this possibly be considered “adolescent?”

Look, verifiable, non-biased information has been provided in abundance for our side of the argument, all of it pointing to celibacy NOT resulting in psychosexual disorders to any measurable degree. If yall want to keep insisting that this is the root or part of the problem, you will have to forgive me if I disregard your opinion until you bring at least ONE SHRED of evidence that this is the case. So far, and I’ve practically begged for it, NOT ONE SHRED of evidence of this has been provided.

One more thing. I mentioned it before, but nobody from the celibacy = pedo side wants to acknowledge the giant elephant in the room, which is this: If someone is ACTING upon their sexual urges, then they are NOT celibate. And just because they were diddling high school boys does not also mean that these same priests were not choking their chickens to the latest issue of Tiger Beat every chance they got, or going for a romp at the local bath house.

So what is it, the repression causes something inside to “break” and become unfixable, hence the continued behavior? If you believe this, please provide evidence, because it doesn’t conform to any disorder trend I’ve ever encountered. And if it’s not this, then it can’t be “repression,” either, because these priests were not repressing shit.

Have cake…and eat cake…can’t have both.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

Read the last couple of pages of my posts. I’ve provided ample evidence that the rate of criminal sexual activity against minors is no higher in the Catholic Church than in other denominations… [/quote]

I’ve seen this statistic repeated over and over and I don’t doubt it’s true. I don’t think celibacy is a cause of abuse, but I do think that there are many risk factors and that there may be as many risk factors as there are priests that abuse. That is, each priest has their own unique reasons, therefore, trying to paint the clergy with the same broad brush is untimately futile.

However, it’s no consolation that Catholic priests abuse at a rate equal to other denominations or that priests abuse at a rate equal to the general population. In matters of morality, we expect more of our clergy, just like in matters of criminality we expect more of our police force.

Lastly, I did like the article someone posted above about insurance companies and how they evaluate risk for abuse policies. In it, a company representitive stated that they do not charge Catholic institutions more than other denominations. I wonder if this is because religion is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and would therefore be illegal. Or, much like drivers, they look at their policies as a portfolio and if there is a bit more risk insuring Catholics, well, then, it’s offset by those Prebyterians.

Just a thought.

[quote]Test Icicle wrote:

I’ve seen this statistic repeated over and over and I don’t doubt it’s true. I don’t think celibacy is a cause of abuse, but I do think that there are many risk factors and that there may be as many risk factors as there are priests that abuse. That is, each priest has their own unique reasons, therefore, trying to paint the clergy with the same broad brush is untimately futile.

However, it’s no consolation that Catholic priests abuse at a rate equal to other denominations or that priests abuse at a rate equal to the general population. In matters of morality, we expect more of our clergy, just like in matters of criminality we expect more of our police force.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree with any of this.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
In order to disprove the hypothesis that celibacy is what is leading to the problem you will first have to explain why this problem isn’t just as rampant in other Christian denominations that don’t require celibacy.[/quote]

It isn’t? Do you have a source that shows that the rates are higher in the Catholic Church?

I don’t understand this comment, so I will refrain from comment.[/quote]

Well it is the catholic Church that seems to be getting all the bad press with these kinds of scandals isn’t it? Although I’m sure it probably does happen there as well because this kind of deviant behavior is part of the human condition, we don’t hear much about the same things happening in the Anglican Church. At least not on the same scale. Which would that there is some kind of factor that is causing a difference.

I’ll clarify the second quote for you. Because I know people who were abused as children, I’ve done some reading on the subject so I could better understand them. So I have learned a few things that are not widely known or understood.

One of the more surprising things I learned was the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. Those two terms are used interchangeably by most people, but they don’t mean the same thing. Not all pedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to children. A child molester is someone who sexually abuses children.

There are two important distinctions then. One is that not all pedophiles act out on their attraction by engaging in sex that is why they are not all child molesters. The other distinction is not all child molesters have a particular attraction to children that they are acting on. They are doing it for the sense of power they get from dominating someone and they don’t give a damn about the age of their victim.

So they are two different groups of people who can arrive at the same result through completely different motivations. It is important to know this distinction so you can understand what type of person we are discussing or if you ever encounter one you can understand what type of person you are dealing with.

The type of person I was referring to in that quote was someone who has an attraction to youngsters. I’m not going to make the distinction between a pedophile, hebephile or ephebophile as they all have an attraction to those who are younger than themselves. The thing to understand is that when they were in the age group that they are attracted to it was normal for them to have that attraction. The problem is they never grew out of it as they got older. This is why I say this is about development.

I believe a big part of it is dependent upon social skills. For example the ephebophile is one who is attracted to physically mature teenagers who are under the age of consent. Why not look for college age kids who look just as youthful but are legal? I think it’s because they don’t have the social skills to successfully interact with that age group.

Something that is important to understand about childhood development and adolescent development is that during those phases of life we develop social skills that can only be developed at that age by interacting with our peers.

So if you take an adolescent who isn’t well developed and you get them to cut themselves off from the interaction with their peers that is needed for them to develop it could cause a problem. That is why it makes sense to me that celibacy could have the potential to cause behavioral problems in certain individuals.

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
In order to disprove the hypothesis that celibacy is what is leading to the problem you will first have to explain why this problem isn’t just as rampant in other Christian denominations that don’t require celibacy.[/quote]

It isn’t? Do you have a source that shows that the rates are higher in the Catholic Church?

I don’t understand this comment, so I will refrain from comment.[/quote]

Well it is the catholic Church that seems to be getting all the bad press with these kinds of scandals isn’t it? Although I’m sure it probably does happen there as well because this kind of deviant behavior is part of the human condition, we don’t hear much about the same things happening in the Anglican Church. At least not on the same scale. Which would that there is some kind of factor that is causing a difference.[/quote]

Yes, it does seem like the Catholic Church gets all the bad press. That’s because it is one Church and possibly residual and actual anti-Catholicism.

Though I wouldn’t rely solely on media to determine who has more child abuse cases or whatever. John Jay College/University just came out with a study/report. There has also been past studies as well on it. It pretty much seems the Catholic Clergy is the same as other clergies. But, I’m not quite sure because those studies don’t necessarily differentiate between clergy and volunteers.

[quote]I’ll clarify the second quote for you. Because I know people who were abused as children, I’ve done some reading on the subject so I could better understand them. So I have learned a few things that are not widely known or understood.

One of the more surprising things I learned was the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. Those two terms are used interchangeably by most people, but they don’t mean the same thing. Not all pedophiles are child molesters and not all child molesters are pedophiles. A pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to children. A child molester is someone who sexually abuses children.

There are two important distinctions then. One is that not all pedophiles act out on their attraction by engaging in sex that is why they are not all child molesters. The other distinction is not all child molesters have a particular attraction to children that they are acting on. They are doing it for the sense of power they get from dominating someone and they don’t give a damn about the age of their victim.

So they are two different groups of people who can arrive at the same result through completely different motivations. It is important to know this distinction so you can understand what type of person we are discussing or if you ever encounter one you can understand what type of person you are dealing with.

The type of person I was referring to in that quote was someone who has an attraction to youngsters. I’m not going to make the distinction between a pedophile, hebephile or ephebophile as they all have an attraction to those who are younger than themselves. The thing to understand is that when they were in the age group that they are attracted to it was normal for them to have that attraction. The problem is they never grew out of it as they got older. This is why I say this is about development.

I believe a big part of it is dependent upon social skills. For example the ephebophile is one who is attracted to physically mature teenagers who are under the age of consent. Why not look for college age kids who look just as youthful but are legal? I think it’s because they don’t have the social skills to successfully interact with that age group.

Something that is important to understand about childhood development and adolescent development is that during those phases of life we develop social skills that can only be developed at that age by interacting with our peers.

So if you take an adolescent who isn’t well developed and you get them to cut themselves off from the interaction with their peers that is needed for them to develop it could cause a problem. That is why it makes sense to me that celibacy could have the potential to cause behavioral problems in certain individuals.[/quote]

I have done some studying myself (for personal reasons and debate reasons), but I have not seen a link between celibacy and child molestation or pedophiles. As I pointed out boyfriends, husbands, and fathers have a higher percentage than clergy.

So, unless I see evidence refuting the first piece of evidence I’ll have to assume that it is true.