Probably right Harry, human nature being what it is. BTW, have you been following http://www.monomakhos.com? Looks like the “never-married” problem is emerging in other places too.

Fr. Hans: I think it’s more likely the abuse was always proportional to the number of ‘never married’ clergy vs. all the clergy. The dates you note have more to do with two things that are more than ‘P.R. announcements’ than, shall we say, measureable facts. First: what the socioligists and demographers tells us is the statistical end of ‘working age widowers’, which occurred with medical advances extending women’s lives and almost ending maternal death, centering 30 years either way of the 1920’s. Second: More reporters and people reporting and fewer ethnic protective enclaves willing to cover up misdoing to protect ‘the image of the ethnicity in the community’.

Robz,

By and large I agree with your last post, except that I consider the “injustice” of laicizing priests of homosexual orientation only marginally an injustice. It is true that many were probably led to believe that their sexual inclinations were no big deal in light of the celibacy requirement. Given the risk, I’m pretty sure it’s not worth it to allow those of homosexual inclination to be ordained. Heck, a friend of my mother’s had a brother who thought about the priesthood but didn’t believe he could handle celibacy (he was straight). He was told it was no big deal and he could have a girlfriend on the side – – i.e., it shouldn’t be a deal breaker. In ROCOR (the Russian jurisdiction in this country), they have a pretty firm rule about not ordaining single men to the priesthood unless they intend to pursue monasticism. There may be exceptions but they’re fairly serious about it. They do this because they have made a determination that it is just too risky.

The fact is, the desperation that RCC now has regarding vocations will likely get progressively worse anyway. If they were wise, they would drop the celibacy requirement and they would probably have more vocations. They would also attract many more Anglicans and ministers of other liberal protestant churches who might otherwise (for reasons of conservativism) be inclined to convert. As it is, Anglicans who take advantage of the pastoral provision are often assigned to convert parishes or serve administratively. The new provision that is in the works might have some positive effect though.

The immediate thing for the RCC is to destroy the homosexual subculture in the clergy. Actually the estimates I have seen for percentage of RCC priests being homosexual is around 50%. In fact, many Roman Catholics more or less assume that a priest is homosexual because he is a priest.

Scott, you have a point, but here’s the problem:

According to numerous reports, homosexuality in the priesthood far exceeds that in the general population.

Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. He told the Boston Globe: “If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church’s operation…It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world.

I find these numbers staggering. Now, I don’t believe that all these men are also predatory rapists (which I consider any man who entices and coerces a minor under their care into sexual relations). To expel all of these men for the sins of some would certainly be unjust, and I know many that have kept their vows and are dedicated. But you may find the risk to be simply not worth it, and that would be understandable.

I will say this: the church will have to reconsider its rules on celibacy for heterosexual men if it decides to go that route. I don’t see any way around it, do you?

RobZ,

“Says who? Frankly, I find it creepy to see old men ogling girls who barely need training bras.”

As do I. You’re raising a spectre (old men oogling young girls) I never mentioned. Did not Christ say that he who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart (aka “oogles”) commits adultery?

The plain fact is that for most of history, 14-16 was the normal age when females got married. It’s a fact. If you don’t like it, that’s your tough luck. I simply pointed out that under your definition of normal, most men in history have been perverts. That’s also true.

You’re not mad about my pointing out the obvious fact that humans are designed to be able to procreate at a certain age and that that coincides with them beginning to exhibit adult features and thus becoming attractive to the opposite sex. Any fool with a high school education could tell you that. You’re mad because I’m telling the truth that a large number of homosexual priests, perhaps because they are not allowed to be openly gay in the priesthood, found it impossible to resist temptation. Your quarrel is not with me, it’s with reality. You are putting up canards that I’m belittling the fact of the abuse. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m just saying don’t flat out lie and say it’s pedophilia when the vast majority of cases were not. It is homosexual statutory rape. I’m not denying it was bad or traumatic or that perhaps some victims even committed suicide. You’re somehow reading that into what I’m saying, as a slur, because you don’t like the conclusions I’m drawing. That’s dishonest.

You seem to think that by eliminating gays from the priesthood you’d solve the problem. I think that’s grossly oversimplifying.”

Not at all. If you could thoroughly exclude all men who have same sex attractions, logically you would eliminate the homosexual statutory rape problem. What in the world gives you the idea that suddenly at the age of 18, males loose their appeal to these men? Libido’s look at driver’s licenses, I see. That’s nonsense. Some priests had consensual sex with males eighteen and older. They’re not on trial but there’s no fundamental difference in their sexuality as opposed to those who molested 16 year olds. To pretend so is self-delusion.

Now, it would not elimiate the problem of molestation of teenage girls or the small percentage of cases of true pedophilia where they molested pre-pubescent boys. But it absolutely would eliminate the vast majority of these cases (over 80%). That’s a good start.

Since you’re being knowingly dishonest about at least two things: 1) that I think its fine if old men oogle 13 year olds and 2) that I’m somehow denying the hurt and trauma the victims feel (which is a flat out lie on your part, I believe you know what you’re doing), I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere. I really only discuss things like this with people who are doing so in good faith and you definitely are not.

Scott writes: “It is perfectly normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to pubescent girls.”

Says who? Frankly, I find it creepy to see old men ogling girls who barely need training bras.

Look, if the girl (or boy, for that matter) in question says “no”, that makes that adult male a rapist. Further, it makes those men who aid and abet that man by shuttling them back and forth from one parish to another complicit in that man’s deeds.

You seem to think that by eliminating gays from the priesthood you’d solve the problem. I think that’s grossly oversimplifying. Odds are that these men aren’t even attracted to anyone over 18. I call it the “Michael Jackson” syndrome: these men are stunted emotionally and spiritually and want to surround themselves with children because they themselves never grew up or wanted to take responsibility for their actions.

Not having been a victim of abuse, I’ve wondered what kind of impact it has on you. I’ve wondered if some people overstate its effects for the sake of revenge or a personal vendetta.

However, I recently read the last letter of a young graduate from Princeton who detailed the torment it left him in for years and who sadly decided to take his own life. It’s a harrowing and difficult read, but it will give you an idea of what this sort of abuse does.

http://documents.from.bz/note.txt

RobZ,

You missed my point. I wasn’t saying that it’s wrong to prosecute statutory rape, that it’s not a bad thing, or that it’s victims aren’t victims and it’s perpetrators victimizers. What I was saying is that the problem is basically homosexuality, not pedophilia. When we use the term “pedophilia” it sounds as if we’re talking about some uber-warped subsection of the homosexual community that has a desire to have sex with young children. That’s not true. What we are talking about is average run of the mill homosexuals who cannot control their desire to have sex with pubescent males.

An analogy in the realm of heterosexuality would not be someone who raped a ten year old girl, but someone who seduced/raped a 15 year old one. It is perfectly normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to pubescent girls. However, we have made a decision as a society that they are too young for sexual activity. In older societies, women were married off at 14 or 15. If it were not psychologically normal for heterosexual men to be attracted to pubescent girls then, axiomatically, all previous generations of men who lived before the 20th century were perverts. That’s a very parochial (or ignorant) point of view. The difference is that now girls have educational opportunities, career opportunities, etc., i.e., many more choices. In the old world, a girl’s life was pretty much cut and dried and there was no sense in not starting reproduction at a younger age since children were considered an asset, especially sons.

There is a temptation to say the “pedophile” priest scandal is about molesting younger children. This is a lie. It is about homosexuals who cannot control their “normal” (to the extent you can call homosexuality normal in any circumstance) desire for pubescent males. The media prefers the label “pedophile priest scandal” because it obscures the reality of what happened and protects the homosexual lobby and its agenda. They use it to attack the RCC for harboring child abusers. It is actually much more useful to show that homosexual men should not be admitted to the priesthood. But that’s the “wrong” lesson, hence the semantic subterfuge.

I don’t care what you call it. It involves predatory behavior, does it not? Are sexually “mature” kids between 13-15 going to be less psychologically damaged by someone who abuses their authority in this manner than someone younger? I don’t wish to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are suggesting that the advances of a much older man on a 13-year-old female are acceptable, simply because she may have the physical capabilities of an adult.

Do you really think that kids at that age enter sexual relationships with much older adults willingly? In almost all cases, it involves coercion, threats and playing upon their sense of guilt. It is a form of rape, if you will. I know several women molested by their biological father in their early teens (who incidentally also molested a male family member – try to categorize that one!). It took them years to overcome the difficulties this presented, and several became involved in drugs in the interim.

So while it’s true that preying upon a 13 or 14-year-old may be physically more “natural” for adult men than upon one who is 8, it is no less criminal if you look at it from the perspective of the victim.

Actually, the whole thing is a misnomer. For the most part, it’s not “pedophilia” although “pederasty” might cover it as Fr. Johannes points out. To be accurate, the vast majority of cases in the RCC are homosexual statutory rape. But you don’t hear it being called the “homosexual statutory rape” scandal because that’s too politically incorrect even though it is factually accurate. Most of the boys abused were between the ages of 13-17. If we were talking about heterosexuals, this would be statutory rape. There is a significant difference not only legally but psychologically. Really, pedophilia refers to pre-pubescent victims. A person who, in the old world, would otherwise be eligible for marriage (i.e., capable of reproduction) is in a separate category from those who have not entered puberty. Psychologically it is different because the person has more physical, adult characteristics than a pre-pubescent child. Legally the two types of abuse are treated differently in terms of the severity of punishment.

The whole thing really does revolve around homosexuality, not pedophilia. And one reason we have a much lower rate of this among the Orthodox priesthood is that Orthodox priests are normally married men.

Eventually, when the whole story is told regarding this, as well as homosexual (i.e., same sex) parenting and adoption, a hard rain will fall. And the story will eventually be told.

Eliot, you are correct that the Roman Catholic church (in America at least) is much bigger than the Orthodox church, so the quantity of abuse reports is higher. Regarding any praise for the Pope, my point was not to say the Pope has handled everything correctly, but rather that there are some areas where the Roman Catholic church has responded to abuse issues (meeting with victims, putting in safe environment programs, etc.) which the Orthodox church has still not done. But both institutions — Roman Catholic and Orthodox alike — have a long way to go before I would categorize either as doing the right thing with regard to preventing abuse, defrocking abusive priests, and reaching out to victims with compassion.

Stan: What I meant to say is that the scale of the scandal within RCC cannot be compared to the one withing the OC. You praise the pope for the way he manages the scandal, but forget to mention that he gained his “wisdom” after he realized that the historical covering-up practice does not work anymore.

I know that family well, they are still suffering from the effects and the GOA parish is almost dead. Strangely enough in many ways the offending priest was an effective pastor under whose direction the parish was beginning to grow for the first time in years.

God have mercy on us all. Lust of power and lust of the flesh are not far removed from one another whether one is married or not.

Just to clarify. The RC child abuse scandal is not the result of “enforced clerical celibacy” except that the celibacy rule necessarily excludes married men from the priesthood. The abuse began after the RC’s allowed homosexuals to be ordained starting in the late 60’s and 70’s. Almost all the cases of abuse were adolescent teen-age boys. Lifting the celibacy requirement would open the priesthood to married men who are generally more mature than most single heterosexuals, and certainly more emotionally stable than homosexuals.

Eliot wrote: “Your statement is unfair, uniformed or simply dishonest.”

Can you elaborate please? I’m guessing (from your quoted paragraph) that you think I think the Roman Catholic church is doing a good job on handling abuse issues, which is not my point at all. I would appreciate it if you would clarify your statement. Thanks.

Stan: Your statement is unfair, uniformed or simply dishonest.

On Ridding Ourselves of Illusions

This is that at the present time Roman Catholicism is in the grip of one its greatest crises, that of sexual abuse, which is the result of nine hundred years of enforced clerical celibacy. The scandal is now even touching Pope Benedict himself, and there are some who, fairly or unfairly, think that he must resign. In this matter, as even the Roman Catholic Bishop of Arundel and Brighton admitted on Friday 26 March, ‘the Pope is not infallible’.

This scandal is only now breaking, as we in the West are aware. In the future it will worsen and we can expect thousands of defrockings and resignations, as is already happening in Ireland and as has already happened in the USA. More than this, we can expect imprisonments of Roman Catholic clergy throughout Western Europe for their revolting crimes. As the Gospel says: ‘But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea’ (Matt. 18, 6). There are many who wonder whether Roman Catholicism in its present form can even survive this crisis.