Theory: On Why Some Priests Molest Children

What is the detection rate in the US?
If the detection rate is only. say, 50%, then it is possible that 8% of priests are paedophiles - probably even more.

What is the detection rate in the US?
If the detection rate is only. say, 50%, then it is possible that 8% of priests are paedophiles - probably even more.[/quote]

You can’t say because they are accused that they then are paedophiles.

Edit… ok… you do say possible… however, it’s an unfair way to spin it.

Peace all! I am not trying to start a conspiracy theory or trying to become the next Dan Brown, I’m just drawing parallels from where the early church first rose as a power and the modern day church that has a well known history of molesting children. What I’m basically asking/wondering is would it be such a surprise that the church kept a few things to themselves from the Greco-Roman period. A lot of traditions survived to this day in Western culture from that period in time. The upper echelons of the Catholic church do still have a lot of power, and have there own law. Why wouldn’t they have secrets that is kept in a very small circle within it?

One thing about priests and celibacy and molesting children out of pent up sexual desire that gets me is why don’t they go after nuns? Yes, a large number of priests may be homosexual, but homosexuality is not a sexual prefrence that chooses children as a target. Priests are around nun’s and other priests more often them members of there parishes. Yet child molestation still happens on a large scale.

Nothing is more evil to me, and I’m sure most people then men who prey on children. Be it those who profit off of it, those who seek it from such providers, or people in positions of trust who defile and use there situation to molest children. Out of all the professions out there where an adult is around children, the church is the largest one that has this problem. There has to be a root to it beyond taboo and clerical law.
Peace

Ok, why do Nuns molest children?

robinwashington.com/articles … _nuns.html

4% is a small percentage. An unacceptably LARGE, small percentage. Anyway, the point was the stupidity of making universal statements which should actually only be directed at a minority.

If I asked “Why do Jews hate Arabs?”, I think people would step up to correct me, saying that most don’t. If I asked “Why do some Jews hate Arabs?”, it’s a very different, and more intelligently phrased question.

Um, I’m sure there’s a lot going on there, especially between some priests, and those studying for the priesthood. Don’t you remember the seminary scandals?

Well said, Dragonbones.

The title of the thread is both inaccurate and unnecessarily provocative.

To try and say there is any one reason for this unacceptable behavior, is perhaps being narrow minded.

Posibilities are:

Some started off as Pedophiles and sought out an occupation that brought them into closer contact with children.

Some started off wanting to serve in a Priesthood with best of intentions, but the lack of womanly association led to perverse behavior.

Maybe some did it because of association with others who did it.

Some are actually innocent of the crimes they are charged with.

I am sure there are other possibilities.

Whatever the reason it is totally unacceptable behavior.

The two big questions in my mind are:

Why do the Catholic Church have a rule that priests cannot marry, when that rule does not exist in the Bible. (and probably for obvious reasons)

Why did the Catholic Church move priests who were accused of molesting children to other parishes. Sometimes numerous times. The Church itself only started to come clean after it all became public. This behavior is also unacceptable.

Maybe they find it difficult to get watermelons.

First, TTBOMU, it is not a universal rule. It is a ‘discipline’ which expects such a vow from all priests in mainstream ‘rites’ (e.g., Eastern). It is not a matter of doctrine. This is why, even in the Church today, there is widespread talk about whether it should be changed.

But the Church doesn’t want to confuse mainstream Catholics by clarifying this (and conservatives in Rome don’t want to encourage free debate or a move away from clergy celibacy), so you have to dig to learn about it. It may come as a surprise to you that up to 20% of priests are in fact married! Most are in the Eastern Rites (Eastern Catholic Churches, which are subsumed under the Roman Catholic umbrella; as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy, which is not), while some are converts from other religions (e.g., married Lutheran converts). I’m told that in neither group can they marry after ordination or remarry after the spouse’s death.

As to why celibacy, it certainly does not have a Biblical basis. Some Apostles and even some popes were married with children.

Nowadays you get all kinds of spiritbabble about holiness, purity, etc., and apparently celibacy (as opposed to being unmarried!) had some pre-Christian to early Christian links to ‘cleanliness’, which has a sexist basis (women being unclean, etc.).

Growing up in an extremely (!) Catholic family, I was told that the real reason for celibacy was to prevent priests from passing wealth and power to sons, i.e., that it was an attempt to limit motivations toward corruption. Long ago, powerful clergy had had wealth and concubines, and scandal resulted.

However, I believe it was so that the Church could retain control of the wealth and power, i.e., the land and wealth controlled under a bishop (etc.) would not have rival claimants in the form of the bishop’s sons.

Regardless, the ban occured in the early Middle Ages, in the 11th century, under Gregory VII, and continued as a disciplinary tradition rather than a doctrine. Which means change is possible.

Timeline:

[quote]AD 300: The Council of Elvira, a local synod in Spain, mandates celibacy for clergy under its jurisdiction.

366: A growing body of papal teachings favors celibacy, but the observance of celibacy is not uniform.

1073-1085: Pope Gregory VII declares that celibacy be universally observed as part of an overall reform of the church.

1522: Martin Luther condemns celibacy.

1545-1563: The Council of Trent upholds universal celibacy in direct response to Martin Luther’s statements.

1967: Pope Paul VI reiterates the tradition.

1971: The World Synod of Bishops reaffirms celibacy.

1978-2003: Pope John Paul II consistently reaffirms his belief in celibacy. However, in 1980, he authorizes an exception for married Episcopal priests who want to join the Roman Catholic Church.

Source: Father Andrew Nelson, retired rector of St. Francis Seminary.[/quote]

No, no, no. They weren’t allowed to see American Pie.

agapetae -( )
early church women who lived with celibate men :s

(thanks Tigerman)

Okay, I changed the subject title, so my dumbass phrasing aside, and all the quite valid opinions on it, I got one question.

Would it be so hard to believe that some members of the modern day church kept a few traditions for themselves from the time of ancient Greece and Rome?

Child molestation aside, the church has a long history of hiding and surpressing information.

[quote=“twocs”] they must be forgiven for their sins because of their confessions.
[/quote]

Their confessions are meaningless unless they actually repent. That includes STOPPING what they have been doing. These people have destroyed lives and dishonored God in one of the foulest ways.

Confession is a farce!

I think they should be subject to the full penalty of federal law. PRISON.

I think they should be subject to the full penalty of federal law. PRISON.[/quote]

You mean they’re not!!! :astonished: :loco:

No, they’re often not. The Church gets away with big payoffs to hush up the victims, while law enforcement turns the other way, rather than infringe on Church territory… completely inexcusable!!! :fume:

No, they’re often not. The Church gets away with big payoffs to hush up the victims, while law enforcement turns the other way, rather than infringe on Church territory… completely inexcusable!!! :fume:[/quote]

Utterly and totally inexcusable. This is perhaps the bigger sin from all parties, government, Church, molester!!!

A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind bat. Nudge, nugde, wink, wink, say no more!

okay, off hiatus and back in the groove. ran the man is back!

churches, i’m talking evangelicals here, are set up unintentionally to abuse. let me give an example:

if your whole purpose is to find someone who is spiritually needy, you will look for that in every person you meet.while this is nobel and good, people who are susceptable to being convinced there’s something wrong with them will undoubtably be influenced by you. the person may be just shy, but you interpret that as a spiritual problem and cause unecessary guilt.also there’s a tendency among evangelicals to blame people who have a legit beef against societal woes or problems as having a spiritual problem,ie not being properly focused on God so they complain. still others in the church are convinced they have paranormal abilities.
i went to this meeting where a woman said she could sense my spiritual delimmas and could see into my psyche (this was not a cult by the way). i thought about it: if you can really do that then lets call The Amazing Randi and take him up on his 1 million dollar paranormal challenge. otherwise don’t subject me to the abuse of making me think something is wrong with me that only you see and i don’t. if you’re not a shrink you shouldn’t go there anyway.