Will priests be allowed to marry again ?

[Rhamiel]

triple post

 

[Rhamiel]

"I'm not doing x", then does exactly x.


Abusing adolescent boys is not the same as homosexuality. Any more than abusing young girls is the same as heterosexuality. It's not the same group. It's not the same drivers. ...

Primarily, there's every reason to think it's mostly boys that were abused because of opportunity, and no other reason.

are we talking about "young boys" or are we talking about boys in their mid-teens?

it seems like you are almost allergic to acknowledging that the main problem was homosexual priests having affairs with teen boys

what do you mean drivers?

do you think ever sexual relationship between people who are over the age of 18 have the same drivers?

do you think straight men have affairs with 17 year old boys? since it has NOTHING to do with homosexuality as you claim

do we see gay men having affairs with 17 year old girls?

seriously
to ignore the root of the problem is silly


Harvey Milk, that icon of the Gay Community, was well known for his preference for underage teen boys

 

[thecolorsblend]

it seems like you are almost allergic to acknowledging that the main problem was homosexual priests having affairs with teen boys

What I don't understand is why we're not allowed to connect the dots there as you have. Priests theoretically meet a wide variety of people in doing their duties. And yet I haven't heard about a vast institutional problem of priests trying this sort of thing on underage girls, 20-something single women, widows, married women or adult men of any kind, etc. Why is the child molestation angle so frequently homosexual in nature?

And why do people get so skittish about saying so? Why is it frowned upon to point out the real and factual tendency of homosexual men to, shall we say, seek out young boys?

 

[ebia]

Yes it is, both.

It's not. They are different things.

 

[ebia]

are we talking about "young boys" or are we talking about boys in their mid-teens?

Well, here it's been early teen if you wanted to pick an age. 11-14 or so, with outliers.

it seems like you are almost allergic to acknowledging that the main problem was homosexual priests having affairs with teen boys

The problem was priests raping young people, mostly boys, mostly adolescents.

Rape is not about normal sexual attraction.

Targeting children is not about normal sexual attraction.

There's no reason for thinking that the offenders would correlate with having consensual well-functioning adult homosexual relationship had the person been in a different context.

what do you mean drivers?

do you think ever sexual relationship between people who are over the age of 18 have the same drivers?

Much more similar to each other than they are to adults who rape the children they have power over.

do you think straight men have affairs with 17 year old boys? since it has NOTHING to do with homosexuality as you claim

Of course that happens. But that's not the kind of thing that accounts for most of this.

Like most of the sex in prisons is not between homosexuals.

 

[ebia]

What I don't understand is why we're not allowed to connect the dots there as you have. Priests theoretically meet a wide variety of people in doing their duties. And yet I haven't heard about a vast institutional problem of priests trying this sort of thing on underage girls, 20-something single women, widows, married women or adult men of any kind, etc. Why is the child molestation angle so frequently homosexual in nature?

Because the cultural expectation was for a priest to mentor male youths. A priest spending a lot of time with a boy didn't raise eyebrows, esp when all the servers etc were boys. Doing so with a girl was less common.

Why is it kids. Because it's not about being a homosexual. It's about being a preditor, raping people under the priests control.

 

[Davidnic]

It really is an argument that has numbers both ways...there have been studies done on the issue that show multiple things. You have pedophiles whose focus is only children, you have pedophiles who are hetero with adults and then abuse children and pedophiles who are homosexual who also abuse children. Most studies coalesce around a few points.

If you looks at people who have multiple expressions (adults and children both being sexual objects) There are more heterosexual offenders by number. But when you look at offenders along with percentage of population with that orientation (Basically that homosexuals form a vast minority of the population percentage wise) homosexuals are more prone to abuse as a reflection of percentage of population with that orientation and expression toward adults and children.

However those who are solely attracted to children and will abuse based on who they can find and have authority over are the greatest number. They are their own deviated orientation.

But none of this is part of priests getting married. Marriage and celibacy has no bearing on abuse except it can shield it because people do not question a non married priest as odd. Department of Education study in 2004 called Educator Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature; showed that (I think the number was close to) 100 times the amount of abuse happens in the Public Education System (according to the author of the study for the DOE). Basically just under 10% of all Public School system children are the target of some kind of abuse from an authority figure during their school experience K-12. That does not excuse any abuse in the Church but it does show it is not caused by celibacy and the argument for married priests is not related to it in that way. Again that stat is not used to excuse a single incident in the Church. But it does show that it is not an issue of not being married.

It is about access and secrecy not celibacy causing anything. Married and unmarried people abuse. Some marry just to shield activities. So it is about access and secrecy not celibacy. And access and secrecy happens in many places. That is what we need to police.

As far as: Will priests be able to marry in the future? I think so. Not Bishops but priests. I think it will be in the next 20 years.

 

[Anhelyna]

David - you know better than to say it in this way

As far as: Will priests be able to marry in the future? I think so. Not Bishops but priests. I think it will be in the next 20 years.

It should have been "Will we have priests who got married before Ordination...... "

 

[mark46]

Well, here it's been early teen if you wanted to pick an age. 11-14 or so, with outliers.


The problem was priests raping young people, mostly boys, mostly adolescents.

Rape is not about normal sexual attraction.

Targeting children is not about normal sexual attraction.

There's no reason for thinking that the offenders would correlate with having consensual well-functioning adult homosexual relationship had the person been in a different context.


Much more similar to each other than they are to adults who rape the children they have power over.


Of course that happens. But that's not the kind of thing that accounts for most of this.

Like most of the sex in prisons is not between homosexuals.

Some of us lived in diocese where the scandals were well understood. You keep calling sexual activity between an older man and a teenage boy "rape", and you should. It is rape under the law. Priests had more access to boys than girls, but in the US, priests had considerable access to young girls. There has a general acknowledgement that these priests were homosexuals. Certainly, the situation in seminaries bore that out. In that case, the seminaries appealed to young homosexuals.

But let's go back to the teens and pre-teens. Yes, homosexual priests had more access to young boys. That does NOT make them any less homosexual. I agree that heterosexual priests had some access to young girls, but rarely acted upon their desires.

What you seem not to understand is that homosexuality among priests (consenting adults) was not punished by the Church. When their partners were young seminarians, few thought this an issue. When they (and the seminarians who became priests)
started using younger partners, the Church covered up the situation and transferred the priests to other diocese without telling anyone of their problems.

The Church continues to coverup these activities, although much less in the US.

 

[HonestTruth]

please do not spam this thread with links to Evangelical websites

this is in the Catholic subforum

the links quote the Bible, not Protestant liturgical sources - therefore, not spam

 

[HonestTruth]

Equivocation on the word "priest".

Priest has two meanings in english. The original one is presbyter - elder - and not everyone is an elder.

The English word is not as significant as the original Greek as that is the one that gives definition and illustrates intention. That Greek word is hieráteuma:


http://biblehub.com/greek/2406.htm


defined as: so Christians are called, because they have access to God and offer not external but 'spiritual' (πνευματικά) sacrifices ... priests of kingly rank, i. e. exalted to a moral rank and freedom which exempts them from the control of everyone but God and Christ




Again, as noted in my earlier post and contrary to church teaching, the New Testament specifically indicates that each and every one of the congregants is qualified for this royal priesthood. As a progressive Catholic I have always had this conflict with orthodox church teaching on this subject and my comments have generally been well received by others seeking reform within the denomination.

 

[Rhamiel]

@ebia what about homosexual men who have affairs with teen girls?
do you see that happen?

What I don't understand is why we're not allowed to connect the dots there as you have. Priests theoretically meet a wide variety of people in doing their duties. And yet I haven't heard about a vast institutional problem of priests trying this sort of thing on underage girls, 20-something single women, widows, married women or adult men of any kind, etc. Why is the child molestation angle so frequently homosexual in nature?

And why do people get so skittish about saying so? Why is it frowned upon to point out the real and factual tendency of homosexual men to, shall we say, seek out young boys?

I think because there has been a history of Christians discriminating against homosexuals, it makes some modern Christians skittish about criticizing sexual deviants

 

[Davidnic]

It should have been "Will we have priests who got married before Ordination...... "

Very true. To be honest I do not even consider it possible they will ever get married post Ordination so my phrasing was imprecise.

Any marriage would be before ordination

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Well, here it's been early teen if you wanted to pick an age. 11-14 or so, with outliers.


The problem was priests raping young people, mostly boys, mostly adolescents.

Rape is not about normal sexual attraction.

Targeting children is not about normal sexual attraction.

There's no reason for thinking that the offenders would correlate with having consensual well-functioning adult homosexual relationship had the person been in a different context.


Much more similar to each other than they are to adults who rape the children they have power over.


Of course that happens. But that's not the kind of thing that accounts for most of this.

Like most of the sex in prisons is not between homosexuals.

The majority of priest caught in sexual abuse cases, did not rape. The majority were guilty of inappropriate touching.

There were those who did commit statutory rape, but they were the minority of sex abuse cases.

Fr Geoghan 68 years old, who was killed by another prisoner while serving time, was found guilty of fondling a boy while in a swimming pool at the YMCA.

Inappropriate behavior by Geoghan who was defrocked, but nothing he should've been killed for.


Jim

 

[ebia]

The majority of priest caught in sexual abuse cases, did not rape. The majority were guilty of inappropriate touching.

It's still sexual molestation. It's still part of the same power abuse, not part of a sexual relationship. It'd still be an issue, and we'd still have language like victim, if they'd fondled adults.

There were those who did commit statutory rape, but they were the minority of sex abuse cases.

It's not just statutory rape, it's (generally) outright rape. That's the whole point. These are not romantic relationships where one party happened to be under the age of consent. They are rape. And rape has long been recognised to have more to do with power than sexual attraction.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's still sexual molestation. It's still part of the same power abuse, not part of a sexual relationship. It'd still be an issue, and we'd still have language like victim, if they'd fondled adults.


It's not just statutory rape, it's (generally) outright rape. That's the whole point. These are not romantic relationships where one party happened to be under the age of consent. They are rape. And rape has long been recognised to have more to do with power than sexual attraction.

Differences without a distinction, all. We're still talking about a grown man feeling an attraction toward an underage boy. The nature of their associating has "jack" and "nothing" to do with what the homosexual in these cases was attracted to.

 

[ebia]

Differences without a distinction, all. We're still talking about a grown man feeling an attraction toward an underage boy. The nature of their associating has "jack" and "nothing" to do with what the homosexual in these cases was attracted to.

Maybe you need to do some reading up on the psychology of rape.

It certainly does not follow from
Person rapes person
That
Person has sexual orientation toward people of the victim's sex.

Rape isn't about sexual attraction.

Neither is who people have sex with when in prison.

 

[ebia]

What we saw in the church isn't what we see in the wider society.

So if it could be blamed on just having homosexuals, you'd have to have a massively higher proportion than the general population. (Approaching 100%?). That ought to show up in other figures, like the numbers that leave to form an adult partnership, say. Or are caught in an adult relationship with a parishioner. So where's your evidence for that?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It's still sexual molestation. It's still part of the same power abuse, not part of a sexual relationship. It'd still be an issue, and we'd still have language like victim, if they'd fondled adults.


It's not just statutory rape, it's (generally) outright rape. That's the whole point. These are not romantic relationships where one party happened to be under the age of consent. They are rape. And rape has long been recognised to have more to do with power than sexual attraction.

Who said it wasn't still sexual molestation ?

By rape it's meant "anal penetration" and in most of the cases, this did not happen.

Jim

 

[ebia]

Who said it wasn't still sexual molestation ?

By rape it's meant "anal penetration" and in most of the cases, this did not happen.

Jim

Correct, but beside the point.