The Catholic Church and clerical sexuality

[Boston Guy]

In Boston, one of the leading local stories concerns a former Catholic priest who allegedly exposed himself to and other abused a large number of children, mainly boys, over a period of more than ten years. During this time, the Church and the Cardinal were aware of his tendencies and had abuse reported to them. He was sent for evaluation a number of times and, each time, was eventually sent back to a parish -- evidently, without any notification to each new parish of his problems in the former parish.

 

The Cardinal had a news conference today. The Boston Globe reports that "Cardinal Bernard F. Law said yesterday that he is 'profoundly sorry' he sent an alleged pedophile priest, John J. Geoghan, to a new assignment in 1984, a decision he said was, 'in retrospect, tragically incorrect.'"

 

I've spent a lot of time in and around Catholic institutions of education, as a student, employee and member of the faculty. I've met a fairly large number of clergy, both men and women, and I count a number of Catholic priests as friends. Some of the priests I've known well have been straight and some have been gay. But it's my observation that all of them have been repressed sexually, at least partially by design and desire, and that most of them have sexual urges that torment them to some degree at least some of the time.

 

I am most certainly not suggesting that a sexually repressed adult will turn to pedophilia or that pedophilia is related to being gay or straight. I don't believe any of those things.

 

But what I do think is that the repression of all sexual desires within the clergy, combined with the Church's authoritarian and very strict approach to all matters sexual, creates a sort of minefield that can be very difficult indeed for very human clergy to navigate.

 

Any thoughts?

[Donnie]

>most of them have

>sexual urges that torment them to some degree at least some

>of the time.

 

God, I'd love to torment you to some degree at least some of the time.

[BuckyXTC]

Hi Boston Guy:

 

Thanks for starting another interesting thread. I've always seen the Roman Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests as a formula for disaster. To expect anyone to deny or repress something as important to our makeup as our sexuality is just plain dumb. Repression is like trying to hold a basketball under water.....sooner or later, it will get away from you and pop up to the surface. Don't get me wrong; I'm not patently anti-Catholic, but I could never be one. The whole natural law theory that underpins Catholic prohibitions on birth control and a host of other reasonable actions troubles me considerably. The Roman Catholic Church has to bear responsibility for untold suffering, including the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS due to their unconscionable ban on the use of condoms. And when you ask priests to deny or repress their sexuality, it should come as no surprise that the very thing repressed will ultimately get expressed in what is often very abberant ways, like pedophilia.

 

I'm not anti-religious, but I'm anti-repressive-religion.

[Guest JT]

>I'm not anti-religious

 

I'm not pro-religious but thank God you're here! Welcome back.

 

 

JT (thinks asskissing and rimming are yummy!)

[Guest dstud4hire]

Agreed about the whole concept of repressing something that is so natural. However, I am not so sure that repression is what leads to something like pedophilia.

 

Besides obviously being a crime that has far less strict punishment than it should, pedophilia I also believe to be a disease. If there are any Doctors on line who can corroborate that, I would be interested in knowing if that is true.

 

Thus being a disease, (if I am correct on that) their pedophilia would come out regardless of whether they were sexually repressed.

 

What is a crime is that members of the clergy who commit the crime of pedophilia for decades it has seemed , have been protected by the church, as obvious in the BOS case.

[Guest 7Zach]

Well, dc, ur post was interesting, but a couple of ideas:

Do pedophiles include a larger number of catholic priests than in the general population, or does it just seem so cuz when the priest is discovered, it seems to make news. Problem with this though, is how many were never discovered? I don't have a clue.

 

Are Catholic priests more likely to have sex with minors owing to their working and being around young boys a lot, and/or getting to know those young acolytes (or whatever they are in the Church)simply cuz they don't have other venues or outlets to meet other gays?

 

Could there be some link between pedophilia and a a percentage of those people drawn to be priests, in a way similar to the fact that people with multiple personality disorder have a statistically significant percentage that were raised Catholic and abused as children?

 

I was raised Protestant, yet in college I liked the priests and the rabbis much better than any minister I had known because they just seemed more human. But if there is some connection between the priesthood and pedophilia, I have just always believed it to be the lack of any "natural" outlet for a sexual drive. I understand intellectually the basis of faith, and the requirement of absstinence, but it must be a tough road emotionally and physically.

[Guest chaz49wm]

I want to know one thing? Why is it that the Catholic Priest who always takes it for the pedophilia cases. It's like no one else does it, B.S. Everyone wants to jump on the Priest because he is supposedly celebiate or tries to be. Do we even think about all the other guys who are into Boys or young kids? The Scout Master's, doctor's teachers and coaches and so on. No it is only the Priest. Why because he is Celebiate? BS once again. We always want to blame it on that. But Why? Not sure but it is easy and we can and who would know? Let me tell you Priest's are guys, human and have natural urges and yes some like women, and yes some like men and yes some unfortunately like kids i.e children. But yes they too are human and like the rest who do or are into it. But we as a society tend to forget about the Rest. The Pastor from another church, the bank president, the teacher in the school and so on. We want to blame it on the celibacy issue in the Catholic Church, I am not sure why we do, but we do. Do we hold the Church above the rest.Who knows? I guess it's easier that way and why would those sexually repressive old men, or are they some younger ones too that are into the same thing? Why would we or they question that? Inquiring minds want to know? So don't leap before you look or know the whole story. OK

[Guest ssn774]

>The Roman Catholic Church

>has to bear responsibility for untold suffering, including

>the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS due to their

>unconscionable ban on the use of condoms.

 

 

I disagree. The Catholic church doesn't conduct opinion polls to help shape its doctrine.

 

My faith requires the will, despite the desire to do what is most expedient, to do what is right.

 

Individuals must live with the consequences of their actions.

[Guest Merlin]

The Church requires two kinds of people to be celibate: the clergy and homosexuals (by prohibiting gay sex or sex out of marriage). The result is that for centuries gay Catholic boys have been drawn to the priesthood. In the priesthood, no one will question why they aren't married. And since they are taught that gay sex is wrong, the vow of celibacy does not seem as big a sacrifice. The result is a high percentage of priests who are gay. Then as priests, they have contact with boys and young men, as altar boys, and in youth instruction and activities. The kids have been taught to revere their priest and are inclined to do what ever he says. The gay priests probably do not start as pedophiles, but since boys and young men are available while older men are not, they become more attracted to the boys. Most gay priests, of course, do not have sex with boys, but suppress their sexuality. The large percent of gay priests in the Church trying to hide their orientation and suppressing their sexual urge had had a profound effect on all aspects of church doctrine and policy. The churchs repressive policies on divorce, extramarital sex and birth control are probably all related to the priests overcompensation for their own urges.

[Guest dstud4hire]

The gay priests probably do not start as pedophiles,

>but since boys and young men are available while older men

>are not, they become more attracted to the boys. Most gay

>priests, of course, do not have sex with boys, but suppress

>their sexuality.

 

Whoa, I think we need to be careful on this area..because that above statement just made the HUGE leap that gay men have a higer percentage rate of becomming pedophiles than heterosexual men. NOt true. IN fact, statistics bear out the fact that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. I believe I have read in articles that the percentage is somewhere in the 90 percentile. But unfortunately, conservative groups will have the public believing it is only gay men.

 

Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous post, and it has been pointed in another post, just because they are priests does not mean they also have a higher propensity for becomming pedophiles. You either ARE or are NOT attracted to children and WILL or will NOT act upon that attraction, and that is where both the crime as well as the sickness comes in. Just because they are supressing their sexuality, does not make them a potential target for becomming a pedophile. To say so then would buy into the notion that most gay men have such a propensity. Afterall, there are a good percentage of men out there who are currently married or date women. They suppress their sexuality all the time, and would not even consider themselves gay or bi, yet have sex with men. They are clearly at no risk of becomming a pedophile. Also, many of us on this web site, escort as well as client, had at one point to deal with the fact that we were repressing our sexuality. It's part of the coming out process. Some may still be coming out late in life. There again, just because we supressed at one point, or may still be supressing our natural tendencies and urges, does not put us at risk for becomming pedophiles.

 

While I do believe that the repression of their sexuality as a priest (Or anyone) is an issue that can lead to problems, pedophilia would not be one of them. Lastly, to make, as someone else pointed out, the assumption that this is a problem with priests, serves to also lump them into a stereotype. Pedophiles, as we probably all know, can be male or female, rich or poor, can target girls as well as boys, can be straight or gay, and work a multitude of professions.

 

Thank you for listening.

[phage]

>Whoa, I think we need to be careful on this area..because

>that above statement just made the HUGE leap that gay men

>have a higer percentage rate of becomming pedophiles than

>heterosexual men. NOt true. IN fact, statistics bear out the

>fact that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. I

>believe I have read in articles that the percentage is

>somewhere in the 90 percentile.

 

Assuming that is true, wouldn’t that indicated that gay’s are no more or no less likely to molest children? That is roughly the same commonly held ratio of hetero to homosexual men. Although statistics aren’t available, it seems to be common belief that there is a higher percentage of gay priests than in the general population. This alone would put boys at a higher risk.

 

>Furthermore, as I pointed out in my previous post, and it

>has been pointed in another post, just because they are

>priests does not mean they also have a higher propensity for

>becomming pedophiles. You either ARE or are NOT attracted to

>children and WILL or will NOT act upon that attraction, and

>that is where both the crime as well as the sickness comes

>in. Just because they are supressing their sexuality, does

>not make them a potential target for becomming a pedophile.

 

I don’t think anyone really understands all the dynamics, but I personally, don’t believe this is true. Many people will do drastic things when pent up desires become unmanageable. The availability of boys and young men and the position of power/authority over them could lead to a “situational” problem. I think your “ARE or are NOT” theory might hold more credence with very young boys, but is probably not valid with young men who are still very illegal.

 

It’s an extreme example, but we know that most of the men in prison aren’t gay and we know what goes on there. (Hell, many of us watch ‘Oz’ every week just to leer at it.)

 

>Afterall, there are a good

>percentage of men out there who are currently married or

>date women. They suppress their sexuality all the time, and

>would not even consider themselves gay or bi, yet have sex

>with men. They are clearly at no risk of becomming a

>pedophile.

 

But you said it yourself….”yet have sex with men.” You’re describing a closet case – not someone who is supposed to suppress their sexuality to the point of celibacy.

 

>While I do believe that the repression of their sexuality as

>a priest (Or anyone) is an issue that can lead to problems,

>pedophilia would not be one of them.

 

Again, the access issue. I recently saw a news report on molestation in the school system (where at least some statistics are available.) You know the type of teacher most likely to be a molester – straight or gay? A music teacher. Now unless you assume that music draws more pedophiles, you have to assume that is has to do with access to kids in a private setting – at least that’s what the authorities think and it sounds reasonable to me.

[Guest TruthTeller]

Another issue to factor into this analysis is that molestation by a man of a boy does not make the man "homosexual" or gay. In fact, the vast majority of men who molest boys - particularly younger boys - are heterosexual.

 

There are numerous psychological studies detailing why heterosexual men molest boys. The secondary sexual attributes of pre-pubescent boys (e.g., no body hair, no musculature, svelte physiques) are far more effeminate than masculine, and their bodies more redolent of a woman's than a man's. Also, molestation of a child (like rape, both of which ential non-consent) is usually about a desire to assert power and coercion rather than a desire to interact sexually.

 

The vast majority of cases where boys are molested are usally by heterosexual neighbors, stepfathers, family members, etc. It's a serious misconception - and one that has been used in very destructive ways - to equate a man who molests a boy with a gay man.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

I posted a comment to this more than 12 hours ago. As it has not appeared yet I am wondering if it is lost in cyber sapce (there are bad cyber fairies, you know) or was it too contraversial to post?

 

Thunderbuns

[Guest JT]

Is pedophilia a disease?

 

>Besides obviously being a crime that has far less strict

>punishment than it should, pedophilia I also believe to be a

>disease. If there are any Doctors on line who can

>corroborate that, I would be interested in knowing if that

>is true.

>

>Thus being a disease, (if I am correct on that) their

>pedophilia would come out regardless of whether they were

>sexually repressed.

 

Interesting point. Is pedophilia a disease? If it is, is it genetically inherited or acquired later on in life? Are there effective treatments available to "cure" it (I seem to recall chemical castration may be used to control or suppress sexual urges)?

Now if people are born with such disease, beyond their control AND there is no cure, then, could people use and/or have people used this argument to defend themselves (similar to plea of insanity) in the court? I find these questions troubling and disturbing...

 

 

JT

[Guest 7Zach]

RE: Is pedophilia a disease?

 

All I have read, and it is not much, but had to do with the guy in the last year or so that was taking some sort of drugs/hormones to completely erase any sex drive. One other resorted to castration. Both articles quoted sources (i have no memory of whom) that there was no cure for those desires...

In response to a post above, I have no knowledge if priests have higher percentages of this than general population. I do agree that it gets more coverage, but part of that may be because it's more of a violation of trust legally than the average joe, or even the boy scout leader.

[Guest CraigSF39]

<JT (thinks asskissing and rimming are yummy!)

 

yummy is what they say when they eat it and it tasts good. how do you like eating it, mouth, bowl, hard, chunks, what???

 

any one else into eating it at all? brown can be good, but you have to have an open mind like jt!!!!!

[Guest neverbeenhad]

I agree. Someone close to me was in a diocesan seminary in the late 70s, and literally three-quarters of the guys were as gay a day in May. And I could tell this at the age of like 10!

The priesthood had been attracting odd characters for years now (I'm not calling gay men odd, this is a separate thought). It used to be a perfect hideout for guys who didn't like girls (not that there's anything wrong with that), and immature guys who wanted a total system to take care of them. There are monarchists, medievalists, flagellants and every other kind of strange bent in seminaries, especially the monastic orders.

The seminaries constantly have to weed out the really eccentric ones, and they're left with the slightly eccentric. Anyone who's a normal guy--gay or straight--is increasingly uncomfortable in that environment. The graduating classes are tiny compared to their initial acceptees.

I agree with another poster that probably pedophile priests make up no more of the population than any other group of males. I think the attention their crimes get now comes from the real shock that it could happen at all, but also that society reacts more strongly to male-male diddling, and priests seem to be more fixated on boys than the average pedophile.

[Guest JT]

><JT (thinks asskissing and rimming are yummy!)

>

>yummy is what they say when they eat it and it tasts good.

>how do you like eating it, mouth, bowl, hard, chunks,

>what???

>

>any one else into eating it at all? brown can be good, but

>you have to have an open mind like jt!!!!!

 

Oh yes, I love licking, kissing and eating ASS big time! And it's YUMMY! :9

 

I'm of course NOT as OPEN-MINDED and INCLUSIVE as you who loves to eat shit. You're definitely an expert since you seem to be very familiar with the texture, shape, and color of shit --- your favorite dish. And shit happens when Ethan meets Crap#xY!

 

 

JT

[Guest WetDream]

Another issue that should be raised is the way that the Catholic Church chooses to deal with pedophile priests. One of the problems has been denying that there is a problem here and a refusal to confront this issue. At least in the San Francisco area there has been a number of problems recently where priests with know tendencies toward molesting children (male and female) have been reassigned to a new church without informing the new public that there is a potential problem. Some of these priests have molested many children in many areas over many years. A recent Vatican ruling confirms church policy of dealing with this issue internally. This seems to be a terrible mistake.

[Boston Guy]

Yes, I agree. The Boston Globe won a suit here to release a significant number of internal Church documents dealing with the most recent case. That seems to have prompted some of the movement by the Cardinal to move towards more openness and a policy where all reported abuse has to be reported to state authorities.

 

The Church changes very slowly. But the rather enormous civil liability it may face here in Boston (with something like 125 separate civil cases ongoing right now) and elsewhere may force it to bring its policies more in line with current legal thinking and expectations.

 

One article I read said that some dioceses, Boston included, could conceivably be bankrupted by the civil penalties stemming from abuse cases.

 

BG

[Guest CraigSF39]

hi bucky,

 

>Hi Boston Guy:

>Thanks for starting another interesting thread.

 

what was his other one?

[Guest neverbeenhad]

JT, do you realize at all how stupid you look posting such an ignorant and off-topic outburst? You're a pale version of whomever you're trying to imitate/impress.

Here's an idea--when you want to put someone down for no apparent reason, try saying something clever. Then everybody will think you're just great, and you can get your thrill.

[Guest neverbeenhad]

JT, sorry, I obviously meant Craig in my post, on his tourettes-ish reply to you. ( we all oughta have that on speed-dial.)

[Guest JT]

>JT, sorry, I obviously meant Craig in my post, on his

>tourettes-ish reply to you. ( we all oughta have that on

>speed-dial.)

 

No problem. Shits happen all the time! }>

 

 

JT (almost pressed the speed-dial)

[Guest WetDream]

"One article I read said that some dioceses, Boston included, could conceivably be bankrupted by the civil penalties stemming from abuse cases."

 

This was also a fear in the San Francisco diocese. One would think that the financial implication of their policy would work where the ethical one may not. (Maybe they should sell all of the bishop's amethyst rings and have them wear simple gold bands like nuns to raise funds for legal defense. }> )