Does being a Catholic priest in Ireland, make you more likely to be a paedophile?

15Pete

Perhaps not the correct forum so Mods please move this thread if necessary, I PM'ed an AH mod asking about it but got no reply.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over whether being an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland made a man more likely to have become a convicted paedophile than if he, say for example, worked as a carpenter. It was my belief that if figures were available, statistics would show that there are many more convicted paedophiles (percentage-wise) who are priests than those from any other single profession.

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges.

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

gallag

This is guaranteed to go well.

Rented Mule

The question is redundant.

TheBody

S0crates wrote: »

Perhaps not the correct forum so Mods please move this thread if necessary, I PM'ed an AH mod asking about it but got no reply.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over whether being an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland made a man more likely to have become a convicted paedophile than if he, say for example, worked as a carpenter. It was my belief that if figures were available, statistics would show that there are many more convicted paedophiles (percentage-wise) who are priests than those from any other single profession.

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges.

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

Are you implying that being ordained in another country would make him less likely to be a paedo? Are Irish Kids more attractive?

con1421

Yes of course

sfbonner

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

HowAreWe

sfbonner wrote: »

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

what?

15Pete

TheBody wrote: »

Are you implying that being ordained in another country would make him less likely to be a paedo? Are Irish Kids more attractive?

Ha no not at all, the question was merely relevant in an Irish context. This is not a trolling thread by the way, I genuinely am interested in other people's opinions. I would love to arrive at a definitive conclusion based on evidence as I feel people's prejudices may affect their beliefs, including my own of course.

Riamfada

"My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges."

This has got to be the most ignorant, self important crap I have ever read. You are either trolling or an idiot.

Mr. CooL ICE

No. The fact that you have to even ask this shows how little you know about paedophilia

Lawrence1895

It's their choice to become a priest, isn't it?

So my answer would be 'No'

AnonoBoy

sfbonner wrote: »

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

You're equating gays with paedophiles. :rolleyes:

If the only thing the church had to worry about was gay priests then they wouldn't be facing the huge scandals that they have faced.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children than straight people are.

Lapin

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church (or any other religion), and I have nothing to do with priests.


But I still wish people would fúck off with threads like this. :mad:

sfbonner

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You're equating gays with paedophiles. :rolleyes:

If the only thing the church had to worry about was gay priests then they wouldn't be facing the huge scandals that they have faced.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children than straight people are.

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

15Pete

Riamfada wrote: »

"My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges."

This has got to be the most ignorant, self important crap I have ever read. You are either trolling or an idiot.

Please explain in more detail why I am either trolling or an idiot, based on my opinions. I admit I have no expertise on this issue and am making inferences based on my prejudices. As a result of this, I seek impartial, conclusive evidence either to support or refute my beliefs.

TheChizler

Might make sense to actually read up on paedophilia and its definition before continuing op. Perhaps you mean general molestation?

And bear in mind that statistically when comparing to the average, you're either going to be above or below it. It's only relevant when it's significant. I think the key word in your statement is convicted, maybe some professions would be more likely to be found out than others, maybe they're under more scrutiny or something, so bear in mind conviction rates may have nothing to do with offence rates.

Grayson

I saw an article on the BBC site a while back. the number of paedophiles in the catholic church is the exact same percentage as the normal population. There is no more likelyhood of a priest being a paedophile than there is for any profession.

The reason it's linked to it is because the church covered up so much and bad priests could reoffend.

shopaholic01

sfbonner wrote: »

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

Altar servers were traditionally boys.

Mr Benevolent

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia.

Paedophilia is a very disturbing and destructive mental illness, not a lifestyle choice.

'As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13)'.

And there's no significant correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia.

AnonoBoy

sfbonner wrote: »

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

That doesn't mean the priests are gay. Just that they are paedophiles that prey on boys.

In the same way that a male paedophile in the secular community could be married, never have indulged in gay activity and abuse young boys. That does not make them 'gay' it makes them 'paedophiles'.

HondaSami

S0crates wrote: »

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

It's unfair on all the good Irish Catholic priests who are not paedophiles.

If there were stats it could be interesting reading.

Artful_Badger

LordChessington wrote: »

No. The fact that you have to even ask this shows how little you know about paedophilia

Replace paedophilia with "sexually abusing children" then which is what he's actually talking about. And he's 100% correct in what he's saying. Someone trying to suppress sexual urges are more likely to abuse children. Case and point is the widespread abuse of kids by "abstinent" catholic priests.

F.J.

It doesn't make you more likely to be a paedophile, just that you will be the butt of a lot of jokes!

DarkJager

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

15Pete

TheChizler wrote: »

Might make sense to actually read up on paedophilia and its definition before continuing op. Perhaps you mean general molestation?

And bear in mind that statistically when comparing to the average, you're either going to be above or below it. It's only relevant when it's significant. I think the key word in your statement is convicted, maybe some professions would be more likely to be found out than others, maybe they're under more scrutiny or something, so bear in mind conviction rates may have nothing to do with offence rates.

Indeed I could have worded the OP in a better way.
I chose to use the term "conviction" because I am not interested in unproven allegations which I believe would cause this thread to descend into an anecdotal farce if allowed to. Convictions are factual and allegations/speculation are not.

Grayson

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Replace paedophilia with "sexually abusing children" then which is what he's actually talking about. And he's 100% correct in what he's saying. Someone trying to suppress sexual urges are more likely to abuse children. Case and point is the widespread abuse of kids by "abstinent" catholic priests.

There aren't a greater percentage of priests who abuse though. The number of priests who abused children is the same percentage per population as any other profession.

The church covered it up though so it meant a dodgy priest could offend again and again and again.

HondaSami

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

That's a bit unfair, not all priests are bad or evil.

Madam_X

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

My uncle is a priest who sometimes minds his small great nieces/nephews. I must advise their parents to put a stop to it immediately, because the mere fact he's a priest indicates there's a strong chance he'll abuse them. The fact he minded me and my siblings/cousins when we were small, and he didn't abuse us, won't stand in the way of my hate-filled, nasty prejudice.

meoklmrk91

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

In fairness for the vast majority of people in the country the local priest is either a stranger or an acquaintance at the very most, I personally would not be leaving my child with anyone who falls into those categories regardless of their chosen profession. Be they priest, guard, doctor or whatever. It's just common sense really.

Agricola

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Paedophilia is a very disturbing and destructive mental illness, not a lifestyle choice.

But what about a situation where legions of young men join an organisation that requires enforced celibacy, where they have no ability to have any physical intimacy with women (or men) In this scenario could a culture arise where some individuals prey on the only vulnerable group they have ready access to.... children.
And where this culture is covered up to limit damage to the organisation, could it flourish? The answer is yes. I don't think for a second that every priest who interfered with a child was a paedophile when they started out. I'd imagine in many cases a whole host of conditions led them down this path, and when it wasnt stopped or punished, it proliferated.

true

HondaSami wrote: »

That's a bit unfair, not all priests are bad or evil.

Only one in three catholic priests / religous brothers abused children. A bit unfair on the other 2.

DarkJager

Madam_X wrote: »

My uncle is a priest who sometimes minds his small great nieces/nephews. I must advise their parents to put a stop to it immediately, because the mere fact he's a priest indicates there's a strong chance he'll abuse them. The fact he minded me and my siblings/cousins when we were small, and he didn't abuse us, won't stand in the way of my hate-filled, nasty prejudice.

It's not prejudice, just caution. I'm sure most of those filthy bastards who abused children were all smiles and handshakes to society too. It's an organisation whose members cannot be trusted at all, regardless of whether you personally know them or not.

awec

In all seriousness, a life time of absolutely no sex is not normal. I don't think it's healthy to be removed from intimacy like that, and constant suppression of any sexual feelings.

The church needs to knock it's antiquated idea of celibate priests on the head.

I'm not sure if it makes you more likely, but those priests who did do it I have little doubt that their enforced celibacy had a huge part to play.

awec

Madam_X wrote: »

My uncle is a priest who sometimes minds his small great nieces/nephews. I must advise their parents to put a stop to it immediately, because the mere fact he's a priest indicates there's a strong chance he'll abuse them. The fact he minded me and my siblings/cousins when we were small, and he didn't abuse us, won't stand in the way of my hate-filled, nasty prejudice.

It never takes long before we hear this "hate-filled, nasty prejudice" crap when it comes to this subject.

God forbid anyone criticise an organisation like the church. Bigots! Bigots!

The church has this country sewn up, who else could get away with what it did and still have people defending it? It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

AnonoBoy

Could it be that men who were paedophiles became priests because they knew it would be easier to prey on children in that position of trust?

So rather than stifled sexual urges resulting from celibacy turning them into paedophiles, it was a deliberate choice by them to enter the priesthood so they could abuse.

I'm not sure if that's true but it seems to me more likely than a good man being turned into an evil abuser through celibacy.

Royal Legend

DarkJager wrote: »

It's not prejudice, just caution. I'm sure most of those filthy bastards who abused children were all smiles and handshakes to society too. It's an organisation whose members cannot be trusted at all, regardless of whether you personally know them or not.

Thats a fairly ignorant statement to make.

Artful_Badger

Grayson wrote: »

There aren't a greater percentage of priests who abuse though. The number of priests who abused children is the same percentage per population as any other profession.

I find that hard to believe. The abuse in the catholic church is unparalleled in terms of the level of child abuse and it wasnt just a few priests. The cover up likely goes further than has ever been accounted for too with many many abuse victims never coming forward.

HondaSami

awec wrote: »

In all seriousness, a life time of absolutely no sex is not normal. I don't think it's healthy to be removed from intimacy like that, and constant suppression of any sexual feelings.

The church needs to knock it's antiquated idea of celibate priests on the head.

I'm not sure if it makes you more likely, but those priests who did do it I have little doubt that their enforced celibacy had a huge part to play.

It's only priests who choose to be celibate? there are many people who choose this life, shock horror married people abuse children as well.

DarkJager

Royal Legend wrote: »

Thats a fairly ignorant statement to make.

No it's not. This is a disgusting cult with a history of covering up and protecting child abusers we're talking about.

catallus

To say that abstaining from sex makes one more likely to be a pervert because it is "a suppression of natural urges" is a very small minded thing to say.

This idea that a man cannot be disciplined enough to be celibate without becoming a twisted abuser is bad enough. It is a sad capitulation to the very modern idea that a person cannot be whole without having sex.

I think the priests in Ireland and elsewhere have taken the brunt of the uncovering of the sexual abuse of children. It was so widespread in so many professions and communities and it was covered up in general by society, not least but not only in the church. Doctors and sports trainers and media professionals and the rest were part of the problem and the cover-up aswell.

The church has been used as whipping boy (not without some reason and justice) for the wrongdoings and shame of society at large.

awec

The apathetic nature of the population toward this issue is why there will never be justice done. So long as people are happy to defend the church and hide behind this convenient idea of labelling anyone a bigot who dares to criticise then nothing will change.

People just don't want to know the outcome of any proper investigation in to this, they'd much rather go down the route of what you don't know can't hurt you.

There will never be justice done in Ireland for those abused by the church, because the people don't want it. Much rather try and spin it to paint the church as some sort of victim, which to me is disgusting.

Madam_X

DarkJager wrote: »

It's not prejudice, just caution. I'm sure most of those filthy bastards who abused children were all smiles and handshakes to society too. It's an organisation whose members cannot be trusted at all, regardless of whether you personally know them or not.

Not dissimilar to "been a few cases of child abuse by swimming instructors too - I would therefore never leave a child alone to be trained by any swimming instructor ever..."

Grand. Enjoy blaming every priest for the actions of the minority if that's what you're into. Not like you'll be dealing with priests anyway - wonder would you actually say to a priest's face "Sorry, I don't want to leave my child to be minded by you". I wouldn't blame a priest (who isnt an abuser - silly that i feel compelled to qualify that) for being extremely upset/angry if they encountered something so horrible and hurtful.

One thing though: no need to put "good" in quote-marks - lots of them are good.
I would think the likelihood of abuse by clergy nowadays has dropped significantly due to priests being under the spotlight.

AnonoBoy

awec wrote: »

There will never be justice done in Ireland for those abused by the church, because the people don't want it. Much rather try and spin it to paint the church as some sort of victim, which to me is disgusting.

Where do you see people painting the church as a victim?

Personally I find the whole institution horrible because of the cover-ups and moving of abusers.

However I don't go along with the 'all priests are paedophiles' brigade because they're not.

I'm able to differentiate the individuals from the institution.

awec

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Where do you see people painting the church as a victim?

Read the post above mine.

awec

Madam_X wrote: »

Not dissimilar to "been a few cases of child abuse by swimming instructors too - I would therefore never leave a child alone to be trained by any swimming instructor ever..."

It's COMPLETELY different and you know it Madam_X, you are an intelligent person.

How many swimming pools do you know where there has been widespread abuse of children and then subsequently covered up?

Do you know of any where this went on for years?

Do swimming pools run schools in this country?

Terrible analogy.

Royal Legend

DarkJager wrote: »

No it's not. This is a disgusting cult with a history of covering up and protecting child abusers we're talking about.

Yes it was, it was aimed at the posters uncle, by labelling all Priests as peados, seriously, thats like saying all arabs are terrorists. I think there are good people in the Catholic church who are just as sickened as you are, people like Archbishop Martin are trying to change attitudes at the top and that imo is good to see.

AnonoBoy

awec wrote: »

Read the post above mine.

Fair cop guvnor.

crockholm

You could be celebate or not, but the one thing you would need is a sexualized image of children, if you dont have that idea of children you wouldnt molest them.

celebate priests have in the past been in clandestine relationships with men and women.

But it all goes back to whether a person see's children in a sexual sense or not, that is why I believe it would be a difficult thing to cure,as most people could not see children as sex objects, its the greatest taboo, therefore people must jump through many mental hoops to justify their evil actions.

Also,as an above poster mentioned, they would most likely enter the church in order to seek access to children.I saw a programme once which showed the pedophiles ring trying to gain access to things like dance schools etc, very deliberate and calculating.

Madam_X

awec wrote: »

It never takes long before we hear this "hate-filled, nasty prejudice" crap when it comes to this subject.

God forbid anyone criticise an organisation like the church. Bigots! Bigots!

The church has this country sewn up, who else could get away with what it did and still have people defending it? It would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

Misrepresent why don't ya. I'm an atheist and despise organised religion - but I don't like seeing innocent members of a group being blamed for what a minority, no matter how sizeable, of others in that group did.
Where did I object to criticism of the church? Oh yeh, I didn't. I objected to all priests being tarred with the paedo brush, which is not constructive criticism of the church, it's just hate-mongering.

Logical_Bear

S0crates wrote: »

Please explain in more detail why I am either trolling or an idiot,

here ye go

SOcrates wrote:

Perhaps not the correct forum so Mods please move this thread if necessary, I PM'ed an AH mod asking about it but got no reply.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over whether being an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland made a man more likely to have become a convicted paedophile than if he, say for example, worked as a carpenter. It was my belief that if figures were available, statistics would show that there are many more convicted paedophiles (percentage-wise) who are priests than those from any other single profession.

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges.

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

15Pete

Logical_Bear wrote: »

here ye go

Oh aren't you clever!!!1! How does it feel to possess such dazzling wit???!?!! How we all wish we could be as funny and brainy as you are!!

Please state explicitly, reinforced by relevant factual evidence where necessary, which parts of my post are wrong and then, how someone stating their opinion on a matter which they admit they know little of -is automatically an idiot. Logically if you understand what that actually means?