Gay priests before 1990

macyard

Has there ever been a study done on gay people that went into the priesthood before the 90's cause they where ashamed and though being a priest would hold back thier drive.

How many of these where the ones to abuse boys when they couldn't hold back their sexuality and as they did not join the priests cuase they where religious but of shame they where ok abusing boys as they would not talk about the abuse while if they had sex with a grown man word might get out.

This has to be the reason most abused children of priests where boys very little girls where abused.

Pherekydes

Surely this is one for the other forum?

Tin Foil Hat

macyard wrote: »

Has there ever been a study done on gay people that went into the priesthood before the 90's cause they where ashamed and though being a priest would hold back thier drive.

How many of these where the ones to abuse boys when they couldn't hold back their sexuality and as they did not join the priests cuase they where religious but of shame they where ok abusing boys as they would not talk about the abuse while if they had sex with a grown man word might get out.

This has to be the reason most abused children of priests where boys very little girls where abused.

This is a wind up, right?

3rdDegree

I didn't think there was any link between being gay and a being a pedophile.

macyard

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

This is a wind up, right?

It's a well know fact ashamed gay people before 1990 oftem join the priests and not due to being truly religious.

Tin Foil Hat

macyard wrote: »

It's a well know fact ashamed gay people before 1990 oftem join the priests and not due to being truly religious.

It's also a well known fact that being gay has sweet fukkall to do with raping children.

macyard

3rdDegree wrote: »

I didn't think there was any link between being gay and a being a pedophile?

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

It's also a well known fact that being gay has sweet fukkall to do with raping children.

True but the high amount of gay paedophiles in the chruch compared to straight paedophiles is huge and if you where gay before the 90's you where often drawn to the chruch.

They only went after boys as they might not talk while a grown man might out them

Pherekydes

Still for the other forum...

macyard

Pherekydes wrote: »

Still for the other forum...

A lot of the gay people that joined before the 90's left once being gay became accepted, so I think tnis one suits as there might have been studies done by them.

They where not reall religious they just went due shame

robindch

macyard wrote: »

Has there ever been a study done on gay people that went into the priesthood [...] How many of these where the ones to abuse boys when they couldn't hold back their sexuality [...]

As you're seem keen on research, you might be interested to read up on the absence of any clear linkage between male homosexuality and abuse of children:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Dept of Psychology, UC Davis, summary wrote:

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

A lot of the gay people that joined before the 90's left once being gay became accepted, so I think tnis one suits as there might have been studies done by them.

They where not reall religious they just went due shame

I think you should post this in the Christianity forum. There are plenty of experts on the catholic church there.

if you are actually interested in getting an answer to your question, rather than trying to irritate people with your thinly veiled gay= child rapist slander, then you should ask there. good luck.

MrP

macyard

robindch wrote: »

As you're seem keen on research, you might be interested to read up on the absence of any clear linkage between male homosexuality and abuse of children:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I am on about gay priests not gays in general, gay men went to the priesthood as it was the done thing before 1990 and due not to want be outed went for boys rather then men to when the sexual urge came.

There was very little straight paedophile priests what else explains the huge difference in the ratio of gay to straight paedophile priests? Also the amount of gay paedophile priest reduced dramatically after 1990 once being gay became more acceptable and they did not join the priests any longer

magicbastarder

macyard wrote: »

True but the high amount of gay paedophiles in the chruch compared to straight paedophiles is huge

you're asking was there ever research done on whether this is the case, and then claiming this is the case.
you seem to have a loose grasp on logic. or else you're a troll.

macyard

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're asking was there ever research done on whether this is the case, and then claiming this is the case.
you seem to have a loose grasp on logic. or else you're a troll.

I can go by the new reports of mostly male victims, I was wondering if there was any peer review studies done and if so why not.

Why has the huge amount difference of gay vs straight priests that abused not been studied?

o1s1n

macyard wrote: »

Why has the huge amount difference of gay vs straight priests that abused not been studied?

Why would such a thing (if it were indeed true) merit study?

magicbastarder

ah here, if i'm going to temporarily amuse myself by arguing against stupid viewpoints, it takes the fun away if the other side doesn't understand the basics of logic.

macyard

o1s1n wrote: »

Why would such a thing (if it were indeed true) merit study?

Why wouldn't it? It would go to show how that the hiding of your sexuality in shame can lead to the person acting on the most vulnerable in socity.

If those gay people did not feel the shame and need to become a priest when they where not religious the amount of young boys that would not have had their life ruined would be huge.

Anything we can learn from past mistakes should be studied

Turtwig

Pherekydes wrote: »

Surely this is one for the other forum?

It was put under consideration.:
. . .

We don't want this. You guys can keep it.

But we don't want it either.

Hmm....

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock?

. . .
And thus far that's been an infinite series of ties between Turtwig and Turtwig.

We might try this next.


Have to learn how to play though.

Damn this modding lark is hard!

Pherekydes

Turtwig wrote: »

It was put under consideration.:
. . .

We don't want this. You guys can keep it.

I thought this forum is for the consideration of the bigger questions, like does god exist, are jaffa cakes biscuits, does pineapple go well with pizza.

robindch

macyard wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

As you're seem keen on research, you might be interested to read up on the absence of any clear linkage between male homosexuality and abuse of children:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

I am on about gay priests not gays in general, gay men went to the priesthood as it was the done thing before 1990 and due not to want be outed went for boys rather then men to when the sexual urge came.

So far as I can understand what you've written, you should read the link I posted above which explains why your basic premise is wrong.

Turtwig

Pherekydes wrote: »

I thought this forum is for the consideration of the bigger questions, like does god exist, are jaffa cakes biscuits, does pineapple go well with pizza.

That's what I said! Other me wasn't having any of it though.

One eyed Jack

OP if you can't be bothered to even research something as simple as when homosexuality was actually decriminalised in Ireland (1993, not 1990), I'm not sure you're actually too bothered about factual research and data regarding clerical sexual abuse of children.

Your posts so far, and given the forum you chose to post in, indicates to me at least that you've nothing better to be doing on a Sunday afternoon than winding people up on the Internet.

Do some of your own research first, and then see what answers you come up with.

robindch

Pherekydes wrote: »

I thought this forum is for the consideration of the bigger questions, like does god exist, are jaffa cakes biscuits, does pineapple go well with pizza.

With respect to these three important questions, positions have been staked out, support has been sought, debate has commenced, logic, evidence and emotion has been deployed, discussion has ensued to the point of the declaration of a provisional ceasefire and the subsequent cessation of hostilities.

The answers are no, no and no.

/forum

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

With respect to these three important questions, positions have been staked out, support has been sought, debate has commenced, logic, evidence and emotion has been deployed, discussion has ensued to the point of the declaration of a provisional ceasefire and the subsequent cessation of hostilities.

The answers are no, no and no.

/forum

No, they're no, yes and no.

robindch

Ah here, we're not starting that again!

Turtwig

We bloody well are. You're not only wrong you're offending me!:(

The Black Oil

Was the 90s not simply a time when a lot of crap emerged about the scale of the abuse and cover up? I would presume that a lot of the time the abuse was down to a handful of things - trust, access to a vulnerable individuals, denial, shame and keeping secrets. Not homosexuality.

A quick Google Scholar search turned up this.

Despite its 2002 lawsuit to force the Catholic Church to reveal cover-ups of sexual abuse by priests, prior to 2002 the Boston Globe engaged in a consistently misogynistic and homophobic bias in its reporting on the crisis. Its journalistic choices supported the frame of the Vatican and the influential Archdiocese of Boston: that this universal crisis was a problem only of a few liberal, “gay,” American priests. International, national, and Massachusetts reporting by other newspapers included hundreds of stories of bishops’ relationships with women; of priests impregnating nuns; of priests raping female novitiates; and of priests serially raping girls as young as four years old. Yet the Boston Globe chose to cover stories almost exclusively involving boy victims. This analysis shows how differently the Globe and other newspapers covered the stories of Father Robert E. Kelley, who admitted to raping more than 100 girls while serving the diocese in Worcester, Massachusetts.

Or this from a Catholic journal.

The reports The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950–2002 and the Supplementary Data Analysis, and The Causes and Context study (2011) by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, concluded that the childhood and adolescent sexual abuse committed by clergy was totally unrelated to homosexuality. The latest John Jay attempt to explain the deliberate homosexual predation and abuse of adolescent males, the primary victims in the crisis, as a crime of opportunity ignores the severe psychological conflicts and grooming behaviors in priests who offended against minors. This article discusses why the studies used to support the view of the abuse of minors as being not related to homosexuality are not applicable to the problem of clergy childhood sexual abuse. The data in the John Jay reports strongly suggests that homosexual abuse of adolescent males is at the heart of the crisis. The psychological causes of homosexual attraction in men to adolescent males are presented. A number of well-designed studies have found that men with SSA are more likely to have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders and STDs than heterosexual males, and are more likely to have a positive attitude to sexual relations between adult and adolescent males. Competent mentalhealth professionals should offer a second opinion about the causes of the crisis in regard to the psychological conflicts in the priests. Also, priests and seminarians with deep-seated homosexual tendencies have a serious responsibility. to pursue appropriate treatment and spiritual direction in order to protect adolescent males, in particular, and the Church from further damage.

And here's one of the John Jay reports. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-in-the-United-States-1950-2010.pdf

Zen65

macyard wrote: »

This has to be the reason most abused children of priests where boys very little girls where abused.

No, it does not.

Priests have historically had more unsupervised access to boys than to girls.

o1s1n

macyard wrote: »

Why wouldn't it? It would go to show how that the hiding of your sexuality in shame can lead to the person acting on the most vulnerable in socity.

If those gay people did not feel the shame and need to become a priest when they where not religious the amount of young boys that would not have had their life ruined would be huge.

Anything we can learn from past mistakes should be studied

You're assuming a hell of a lot here. Its like you have some pre conceived notion about this and are trying to find links between things that aren't there.

matrim

o1s1n wrote: »

You're assuming a hell of a lot here. Its like you have some pre conceived notion about this and are trying to find links between things that aren't there.

Or it's like they are throwing around a load of mud in the hope that some of it sticks and puts a few people off from voting yes in the upcoming marriage equality referendum

smokingman

<snip>