Because of the priestly abuse scandals we so often hear that the problem is priestly celibacy. That not having sex causes you to abuse children and teens. That it is unhealthy and unnatural for us not to have sex.
Well if they truly believed this then we need a whole new set of laws.
For example what about socially awkward and extremely shy men? Obviously their unwanted state of celibacy will cause them to abuse children. How about marriages that have grown to be sexless because of one spouse being tired of sex? They too will look for children to abuse by this reasoning. What about people not having sex before marriage and still have not found the person they want to marry?
So what we need are a new form of Temple Prostitutes. Yes government prostitutes and I am not talking about politicians. The government should monitor people’s sex life and determine when a person has been without sex for a specified period to be determined. The celibacy cycle must be monitored to prevent abuse.
Plus who knows when this sets in so maybe the government should force people to get married at a younger age or ensure that government appointed prostitutes make visits for preventive maintenance. By this logic we know that a period of celibacy can cause lifelong problems. We know this because priestly abusers often go on to more and more abuse. So they are no longer celibate yet they have steady sex via their abusive relationships. Those that abuse children often go on to abuse more and more children throughout their lifetime. So the celibacy causes abuse logic would dictate that it is not the psychological sickness of the individual, but the often short period they were actually celibate before abusing children and predominately teenage males. Funny how celibacy causes abuse that targets teenage males. I guess the lack of sex makes men all of sudden choose victims of a certain age and gender since it can’t possibly have anything to do with same sex attraction don’t you know. Just one of those odd quirks that come from being celibate for a period of time.
So you parents that believe celibacy causes abuse out there – make sure your male children either get married early and that they have a continuous sex life or that you buy them prostitutes until the government steps in to help. Plus keep ignoring the fact that most child abuse occurs within families and to a lesser extent public schools. Celibacy is the problem, facts be damned.
23 comments
Swell, another ineffective Stimulus Program from the government.
Plus this reveals the true status of the folks who, by reason of some physical impediment, are unable to have sex regularly. They are Menaces to Society, blots on the natural order, and should be eliminated before birth in the name of compassion.
Oh, wait, we already do that.
Peace,
–Peter
Clever. Wins the irony award of the day….
Don’t give the libs ANY ideas!!
Have you read J. Neil Schulman’s THE RAINBOW CADENZA? In his imagined future, the ladies of the Federation Peace Corps are drafted to make love, not war, on the ground that they are needed to keep men from running amok.
1984 had “sex police,” if I recall. (Haven’t read it in years.)
The Left might try to solve the celibacy problem using the same philosophy as the tax code: force those who HAVE to give to those who HAVE NOT. This way hot, sexy people would be required to “donate” themselves to the very undesirable and UGLY folks who never get any. The more sexually attractive a person is, the more “quality time” would be spent with the “troll” in order to satisfy that person’s needs (assuming sex is as important to living as food or water). But then after a while even some people classified as “ugly” would be required to donate some of their time to the REALLY ugly, which could include people who don’t make any effort to doll themselves up at all…or even bathe. Such relationships could produce some very interesting looking offspring.
Soooooooooo, Big brother is going to step and tell those of us that have been married for quite some time that we’re not having enough sex? Good luck with the wives!
[…] course the Curt Jester has a solution to the whole problem: Government prostitutes! Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)One more thing about the Cutieā¦A great […]
Although I agree that celibacy does not lead to abuse, there’s an angle to it that you might not be taking into account.
If the church selects its priests from among those men who are willing to renounce marriage, isn’t that necessarily a skewed sample?
For example, one effect of celibacy may be that young men who are confused about their sexuality are going to see the priesthood as an escape from their confusion.
The point then would not be that “celibacy causes abuse,” but that a “we want celibates” sign on the seminary door might attract a slightly odd bunch of men.
Sure, celibacy is the cause all right. That’s why the majority of men who abuse children are “happily straight married” men???
Let’s remember it’s our job as Catholics to change the world not the world change us and our beliefs.
Greg, most dioceses will not accept a young man who is confused or immature in his sexual identity. The psychological screening done nowadays to a prospect is extensive. And I am not sure what to make of the phrase ‘attract an odd group of men’; is that a slam on priests? Is that a slam on seminarians? I would like a connection to the two please.
It’s fine to say that the diocese “screens” for people who are confused about their sexuality, but there’s no reason to believe that the screening is effective, especially when, just a short time ago, it was widely reported that priests were dying of AIDS at a much higher rate than the general population, and there were many other stories claiming that homsexuality was prevalent in the priesthood.
Maybe those stories aren’t true. Maybe they’re just viscious rumors spread by the evil enemies of the church, just like all those nasty things said about Fr. Maciel.
Oh — gee. Those turned out to be true.
In any event, I don’t know if the charges about sexual problems in the priesthood are true or not. It’s just something that’s been reported — sometimes by very credible people, like Leon Podles. But the story that dioceses screen for confused people is also just a story. And I have no reason to credit the one story any more than the other.
But I deal with sampling and with markets all the time, and it’s obvious that if you set a condition on your sample, you’re going to skew the sample.
By only selecting men who are willing to renounce marriage, you are getting an unrepresentative sample of men. There’s no sense in denying that.
Also, when there’s a shortage of priests, standards will be lowered. Once again, that’s simple supply and demand. You might as well argue with gravity as deny that it has had an impact.
Greg, you are correct that the extensive screening will not get everyone, but it does strain out the majority. However, in the last 15 years we have upped the standards, and some places upped them even more. For example, in my diocese, a young man who wants to petition the diocese to be sponsored must undergo an extensive psychological evaluation, criminal background checks, all physicals (including all STDs), long applications, 5 character witnesses, recommendation from pastor, 1st interview with Director of Seminarians (usually 2-3 hours with no topics off limits), and a board interview with chancellor ( a sister), the Associate to the Chancellor whose job is predominantly in screening individuals who will work with children or currently do so (both lay and cleric), the Director of Seminarians, and the Vocational Director for a grilling of about 1 hour, finally all the information is taken to the bishop for his final yes or no. If the diocese sponsors the young man, then they have to do the whole thing all over again to gain admittance to the seminaries we send to. When we started this new process 5 years ago, we had 6 sems, we now have 23. WE upped the heck out of the standards and say no to as many as we say yes to.
Your problem is that you will not acknowledge that the church has learned anything from the crisis. You act as if we are putting our collective heads in the sand and hoping the problem goes away. You cite abuse cases that happened years, even decades, back and act as if they just happened yesterday.
The standards were lowered for many decades and we ended up with the problem we got. To this end, many dioceses have learned and have consequently upped the standards. Ask yourself, how many other institutions make a candidate for studying for a field go through what we make a young man go through just to study for the field? Heap on that 6-8 YEARS of formation that continues the weeding process. The attrition rates for a young man going into the seminary to those who will get ordained is around 50%. The seminaries we send to are also hyper vigilant is making sure nothing odd, dangerous, or predatory goes through…which is why we have chosen the seminaries we have.
Is it possible that a predator could still get through. Sure. But we will have eliminated the vast majority of them and done everything we can to eliminate all of them. Who else does that? Is t a shame and an incredible sin that it took the airing of our sins to get this going? Yes, it is. Things are changing, the current Pope is doing all he can to crack down, even in taking over the Legionnaires and launching investigations into them and their lay arm, Regnum Christi. This is not to so that these entities are rife with malfeasance , but to make sure they are not.
And if you are so unsure, perhaps you can call your local diocese and ask them what they do to screen candidates. If you wish to call me a liar about the screening process, that’s your choice. However, I would like you to get current information fro your own diocese about what is done.
Thank you Fr.BillP. Most people don’t want to do
much more investigating than the NYTimes.
I use this same argument all the time. I’m not married, so when people talk about celibacy being a cause of abuse I usually ask, so I must be a risk of abusing children too then? Priests don’t have sex, I don’t have sex, what’s the difference? Better yet you can turn it around on them. Ask, so up until the time you first had sex you must have been constantly abusing children were you?
Indeed, Fr. Bill. Add to the screening process (which almost always takes the better part of a decade under close observation) the fact that the life of a Catholic priest is now that with the least possible access to children in the developed world, and it seems that whatever skewing of the data sample that may have had a substantial impact in the past has been rendered null.
These days, sexually deviant types (whether suffering from pedophilia, ephebophilia, or another paraphilia) would be much better off finding outlets for their inclinations being, say, marketing directors or sportswriters.. Or anything else but Catholic priests.
Wow, when the Church says screening, it means screening!! Thanks for the input, Fr Bill. What I find miraculous is that the seminaries have found enough psychologists/CSWs who are sane enough and trustworthy enough to do the psych. evaluations! Or is the data not evaluated by the psych experts? Only asking because most of the priests I know could do a better job of evaluating the analyst, rather than the reverse…Or is the screening evaluated by computer?
In any case, it’s awesome that an increase in seminarians resulted when criteria got tougher. Blessed be God!
The analysis is thrice gone over…once by the psychologist, once by the assistant to the chancellor, and once by the vocational director…and then is gone over again by the seminary we send to.
GregK is absolutely right! Celibacy might not cause sexual abuse but it cannot be disregarded as a possible factor in the clergy’s seemingly increasing homosexual orientation. Celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, that was introduced to keep church property from being deeded to the descendents of priests and bishops. If the discipline is helpful, all well and good. If the discipline creates more harm than help, it must be re-evaluated.
I wonder if the people who operate this blog have a positive opinion of Michael Rose, Stephen Brady and Leon Podles, who have been the canaries in the coal mine on this issue for a rather long time — and have been disregarded by the Catholic Apologetic Commentariat.
“Celibacy might not cause sexual abuse but it cannot be disregarded as a possible factor in the clergyās seemingly increasing homosexual orientation.”
PROVE IT !!!! Otherwise all you have done is engage in is calumny, which is considered mortally sinful. I have read your authors, and 20 years ago I would have agreed with them, however, the situation is turning around and candidates are being screened more carefully. You and your ilk still have no empirical data to say things are getting worse. All you have is hearsay. I challenged you to call your local diocese and find what they do…or does not fit your narrative?
Fr. Bill, have you read Michael Rose or Leon Podles? If so, then please provide your own empirical data. Otherwise, stop acting like an intoxicated melonhead and start acting like a priest…if that’s indeed what you are.
I have read Rose. Prior to this thread I have never heard of Podles. My empirical data comes from lived experience. It comes from the 100s of priests I know, working in vocation recruitment and formation for over 10 years, and looking at various CARA studies. I am not making statements like ‘clergy’s seemingly increasing homosexuality’, that would be you. What first hand proof have you?! Do you know such a large group of priest, particularly newly ordained (because logically if the clergy is seemingly growing in homosexual tendencies it must be because the new ones are gay), that you can make such a statement? Having been exposed to seminarians from the 5 schools we send to, listening to them talk about their seminaries (which are by no means Edens), and watching them and their lives…and maybe my sample group, being dominated by students from the Great Plains and Midwest, is skewed to the right…I have first hand data. What is yours?