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>

Zaph

smokingman, if you want to make wild leaps of logic that result in potentially defamatory statements like that, we'd prefer if you did it somewhere else thanks.

smokingman

smokingman wrote: »

<snip>

I do apologise mods, thought I had used enough vagueness to simply imply what I said.

Won't happen again.

Brian Shanahan

MrPudding wrote: »

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

He honestly shouldn't be posting this anywhere. As you've rightly pointed out all he's doing is posting homophobic lying propoganda.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

He honestly shouldn't be posting this anywhere. As you've rightly pointed out all he's doing is posting homophobic lying propoganda.

Agreed. I just thought it would be funny to see how long to lasted there.

MrP

kylith

Zen65 wrote: »

No, it does not.

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

Exactly what I was going to post. It has to do with access more than anything else.

I'd imagine that gay priests would have found it quite easy to find other gay priests to have consensual sex with.

Zen65

kylith wrote: »

I'd imagine that gay priests would have found it quite easy to find other gay priests to have consensual sex with.

Yes, not just other priests . . . but other gay men. Of course it's 'safer' for two priests to keep a secret, but the laity can be perfectly discreet as we know from the many heterosexual relationships that were kept secret. I have no doubt that such relationships continue among the catholic clergy, and where consenting adults are involved I have no issue whatsoever with that.

The OP is very deeply flawed in its assertion, but it is not the first time I have read & heard this suggestion about a link between homosexuality and paedophilia. It is not the result of any rational, logical study, but rather a conclusion drawn by bigoted, homophobic minds.

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

No, they're no, yes and no.

No, they're no, yes and yes.

Anyway, to get down to the OP, the repression of teaching or learning about sexuality for young people to the point that they can't express any of their feelings either verbally or physically has got to produce some warped and antisocial sexual outbursts - stands to reason. Therefore, it's paedophilia brought on by the dynamic of sexually fcuked up authority figure versus child who can't say anything. I think the gender of the child, or indeed the gender of the repressed religious personnel is entirely irrelevant, as is the sexual orientation of the repressed individual.

Kidchameleon

Back in the day, priests were high standing members in the community. They had the respect of the people and were considered upstanding members of society. These things were very attractive to a person with pedophilic (is that even a word?) tendencies. Nobody would beleive a child if he/she accused the local priest of wrong doing. Priests also had a lot of access to children. It bothers me greatly when people blame the church on pedophiles, the churches mistake was covering up for them, they didn't create them. There are plenty of sick animals who are not in the priesthood.

Its the same thing with all these psycho's killing "in the name of Allah". Its just an excuse for them. These people would be killers, religion or no religion.

Absolam

No, yes, yes. Nothing in the OP merits consideration.

Cabaal

Zen65 wrote: »

No, it does not.

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

*cough* alter boys
Alter girls didn't exist till the mid to late 90's, girls weren't worthy of standing up by the priests and ringing silly bells and the like

magicbastarder

if i ever form that anarcho-ambient-jazz-metal band i'm always threatening to do, i'm gonna call the band 'gay priests before 1990'.

Zen65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its the same thing with all these psycho's killing "in the name of Allah". Its just an excuse for them. These people would be killers, religion or no religion.

Well yes and no.

Violent people will use any excuse to justify their actions, certainly. A percentage of violent people may use religion to justify their hatred and therefore their actions, and in that respect I agree with you. But it cannot be denied that most fundamentalist religious teachings endorse murder, and hence people who are primarily inclined towards adherence to a religious cause will interpret the religious instruction as a reason for killing. In such cases it seems clear that it is the religious observance which prompts the violence, and not the other way around.

Hence while religion cannot be seen as the sole cause for these murders it is undoubtedly a cause for some of the killings. Evidence for this is two-fold:

• Religions which are not based on ancient teachings including sacrifices to a god do not generally have followers with a pre-disposition to violence. You will not find many people using their faith in Buddhism, Shintoism or even Scientology as justification for killing. (It is debatable whether or not Scientology is actually a 'religion').
  
• Persons with no history of having a pre-disposition to violence can become violent (or support violence) after immersion in a faith-based cult. This is what people refer to as 'radicalisation' through faith-based teachings

Buddhism and Shintoism are particularly interesting in this respect. A religion having no god (Buddhism) or many gods (Shintoism) does not seem to evoke violent feelings in the same way as those religions having only one god. It's the difference between following a football league versus following just one football team.

Kidchameleon

Indeed Zen65 I agree and may I add that pretty much everything in the world can turn people into killers. Money, love, patriotism would be a few examples.

Zen65

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Indeed Zen65 I agree and may I add that pretty much everything in the world can turn people into killers. Money, love, patriotism would be a few examples.

Love and hatred (of people - or of a monotheist deity) are the two principal enablers of killing.

That can extend to love of country, or love of money / possessions in some cases (land being probably the most common).

But some countries have legends and myths which promote the idea of dying for your country. Ireland itself is an excellent poster-boy for such a philosophy - and so Irish Martyrs seem to have a special place in history as will be noted in particular next year when the 1916 uprising is commemorated. On the other hand I cannot ever recall hearing of somebody who sacrificed themselves for Australia. Their culture (which is far more secular in nature) does not suggest that dying for your country is a great deed.

Anyway, this is drifting off-topic and it's very early in the morning to be discussing such lofty concepts.

Hotblack Desiato

Zen65 wrote: »

On the other hand I cannot ever recall hearing of somebody who sacrificed themselves for Australia. Their culture (which is far more secular in nature) does not suggest that dying for your country is a great deed.

Ever hear of ANZAC Day? Or see one of the hundreds of RSLs? Dying for one's country may not be venerated as such in Australia, but serving in the military overseas is, and one tends to follow from the other.

Brian Shanahan

Zen65 wrote: »

Religions which are not based on ancient teachings including sacrifices to a god do not generally have followers with a pre-disposition to violence. You will not find many people using their faith in Buddhism, Shintoism or even Scientology as justification for killing. (It is debatable whether or not Scientology is actually a 'religion').

• Persons with no history of having a pre-disposition to violence can become violent (or support violence) after immersion in a faith-based cult. This is what people refer to as 'radicalisation' through faith-based teachings

Buddhism and Shintoism are particularly interesting in this respect. A religion having no god (Buddhism) or many gods (Shintoism) does not seem to evoke violent feelings in the same way as those religions having only one god. It's the difference between following a football league versus following just one football team.

Buddhism:
There was a large Tibetan empire in the 6th-9th centuries CE which was expansionist and aggressive in nature. While the empire started off adhereing to the bon animist beliefs, it quickly converted to buddhism, and quite a lot of it's expansion was due to proselytising buddhist beliefs in SE Asia (hence why the likes of Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos & Vietnam are majority buddhist today). Furthermore its final king was assassinated by a buddhist monk because he was allegedly trying to reconvert the country to bon. And look today at Burma and Sri Lanka where non buddhist minorities are heavily persecuted (often to the point of mass murder) with full blessings of religious leaders. And then you've got Aum Shinrikyo the Japanese buddhist terrorist group who released sarin gas into the Tokyo subway system in 1993. And then you've got the Mongols to think of, who were majority buddhist for most of their conquests.

People's views of buddhism being non-violent and atheistic (most Eastern forms of buddhism are deeply polytheistic, the comedy show Monkey for example gives an accurate description of Buddhist pantheon) is mostly an artefact of its westward spread in the 60s and 70s. Some very charismatic and dodgy people managed to emphasise the tolerance and peace aspects of buddhism and ignore the kill all infidels aspects and there were many people in the West at the time who had grown disillusioned with the Abrahamic faiths, yet not ready to take the final step and throw off religions altogether, so the manufactured buddhism they were being sold was greedily lapped up.

Shinto:
This is the religion the Japanese state used to great effect to brainwash its people, first to conquer large swathes of East Asia, second to view the conquered people as inferior (similar to Nazi Germany's views of Jews and Slavs) and thirdly to continue fighting suicidally long after any chance of victory or stalemate had disappeared. Enough said to refute its non-violence.

Zen65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ever hear of ANZAC Day? Or see one of the hundreds of RSLs? Dying for one's country may not be venerated as such in Australia, but serving in the military overseas is, and one tends to follow from the other.

There's a vast difference between martyrdom for one's country and taking a side in a war. Most of the veterans to whom Australia pays tribute on ANZAC day died fighting in a war against unjust oppressors - often oppressors of other countries or people; not fighting to colonize other countries on behalf of Australia. If anything, the national spirit of Australia venerates freedom of speech and freedom of allegiance rather than a blind love of country.

To be clear - I did not mean to imply that non-belief was equivalent to promoting peace, but rather that monotheism promotes the philosophy of martyrdom on a level you just do not find in polytheist or atheist cultures.

Zen65

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Buddhism:
There was a large Tibetan empire in the 6th-9th centuries CE which was expansionist and aggressive in nature.

True, but I'm talking about today's religious practices, or at least practices of the last 50 - 500 years. Once you go back to 6th century history you'll find almost every culture included an aggression at its core, because survival depended on it. The teachings of Buddha did not include any texts which could be seen as expansionist or aggressive - these attributes were introduced by the Tibetan empire and superimposed onto the culture. Although Buddhism was the prevalent faith at that time, its teachings did not directly promote aggression. Contrast this to the teachings of Islam or Judea-Christianity where violence is explicit in the 'holy texts'.

Shinto:
This is the religion the Japanese state used to great effect to brainwash its people, first to conquer large swathes of East Asia, second to view the conquered people as inferior (similar to Nazi Germany's views of Jews and Slavs) and thirdly to continue fighting suicidally long after any chance of victory or stalemate had disappeared. Enough said to refute its non-violence.

Okay, I did side-step this issue, but for (I believe) good reason. Shintoism in its original form was largely nothing more than vague folklore and tradition, a belief in the spiritual elements of humanity (and animality too) but without having a core text of any kind. You cannot for example quote the book of Shinto because in absolute terms it has not been written. While this is a pleasant attribute in many respects it is also a weakness because the beliefs are exposed to hijack, and that's what the Japanese state did to great effect by linking the veneration of ancestors to a form of nationalism. That off-shoot of Shinto (often termed 'State Shinto') was used as a support vehicle for the propagation of nationalism, which in turn promoted aggression.

As with Buddhism, there are no supporting texts at the core of the Shinto religion which promote violence. To the best of my knowledge there is actually no core Shinto text at all! There are beliefs however linked to both the Shinto & Buddhist faiths which attach very high virtue to perseverance, even past the point of any positive outcome. In battle this is seen as suicidal continuance of the fight in preference to surrender, and in work this is seen by the esteem bestowed on Karōshi (dying through over-work). I don't think I could see this as being a promotion of aggression in itself, but I grant you that the symptoms you describe resemble aggression.

In today's world, there are (almost) no suicidal Buddhist terrorists, nor Shinto terrorists. Japanese nationalism, though dented by their defeat in WW2, remains strong. Occupation of Japan by the US continues, and yet terror-cells are not being detected.

As with my previous comments on theism, I am not suggesting that the absence of monotheism eliminates violence, but the presence of it certainly does seem to promote it.

Could we BE any further off the topic of gay priests?

lazygal

Zen65 wrote: »

Could we BE any further off the topic of gay priests?

Any thoughts on biscuits? What about Jaffa "not biscuits" cakes?
Any strong feelings on Hawaiian pizza?

Zen65

lazygal wrote: »

Any strong feelings on Hawaiian pizza?

I do understand why people feel it's wrong and unnatural. But those juicy rings are irresistible!