Does celibacy produce paedophilia?

[chakka35]

The other day I heard a senior Catholic clergyman dismiss as nonsense the idea that the celibacy imposed on RC priests has a connection with the appalling revelations that are coming out about the abuse of children by many of those priests.

I am not convinced. It seems to me that there is a logical connection, thus:

Human beings have the urges that evolution has produced in them (or, as they would say, God has built into them) regardless of any white dog-collar they might wear. Faced with the arbitrary celibacy imposed on them, with no scriptural basis, priests cannot assuage those urges easily by sexually accosting adults - who will protest loudly to the the priest, his bishop and probably the police.

Children, however, can be cowed by the awe of that priest that has been bred into them, and by threats of burning in hell if they tell anyone.

Any RC priest here who would like to comment? Or anyone else for that matter?

[naomi24]

Oh thanks Chakka. I couldn't remember her name.

[chakka35]

I haven't given that other lady's name accurately, merely hinted at it in case we're wrong. After all, I wouldn't want to lumber either of them with the identity of the other if they are different!

[andy-hughes]

I don't believe the celebacy per se leads to abuse.

In the case of priests, it is the reverence in which they are held that leads them to believe that they can behave as they wish - an attitude fostered and encouraged by the Catholic church with its arcane screcy, and will complicity in aiding abusers by simply moving them.

As shown by footballers, a lifestyle where no-one ever says 'No' simply leads to arrogant brutish behaviour and a superiority complex. Add celibacy and secrecy, and you have the beginnings of an abusive environment which the church still refuses to acknowledge and deal with.

I bet the thousands of abused irish children were chuffed to bits that the Pope's reaction was to ... write them a letter!

[society]

"In the case of priests, it is the reverence in which they are held that leads them to believe that they can behave as they wish "

Then they are going against the teachings of the bible. Therefore they are being hypocrites.

[andy-hughes]

Absolutely - but hypocricy and guilt are conerstones of the Catholic faith - there to be exploited, covered up and allowed to continue.

[naomi24]

I realise that Chakka. Thanks to your hint, I remembered her name.

[society]

Very true Andy-Hughes.

[englishphysicist]

If you read what modern behavoiural psychology says eg. some of the ideas in the "Lucifer Effect" there's a strong argument that what umm etc are saying about these priests basically being "bad apples" who were going to do terrible things despite the situation just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You have to look at the system, if you put people in a broken system and give them authority then the bad behaviour will pretty much always follow, so you have to either accept that a much higher percentage of people than you would happily admit are "bad apples" or that most/many people have the capacity to do terrible things if put in the wrong social system.
A social system where you abhor sex, live in chaste environments and have lots of uncontrolled access coupled with absolute power over children and young adults sounds about as positive as guantanamo.
As for the idea of people being inbuilt paedophiles, or homosexuality being the problem, too many of the events are heterosexual to ignore and if you read your history human sexuality whilst it may have a genetic component is far more changeable than people like to think.

[englishphysicist]

I read a book which really changed how i think about questions like this, i reccomend it- "The Lucifer Effect", nothing to do with god but about behavioural psychology. The point was that people have a tendency to dismiss terrible behaviour as "bad apples", like ummm and the priesthood are now. The point is that that doesn't hold up, history and experiments show that if you set up the wrong sort of social system then bad behaviour INEVITABLY follows. To reconcile that with the idea of "bad apples" you'd have to admit that MOST people are "bad apples" because the bad bahaviour always comes.
A social system of no sex and absolute power over/prolonged private contact with a wide range of people from adults to children sounds like an absolute nightmare, and in such a terrible system then history shows that bad behaviour inevitably follows, it's not a case of bad apples.
FInally, to blame inbuilt sexuality (pedophiles or homosexuals) doesn't really make sense, since for a start many of these cases havfe been heterosexual, too many to ignore. Finally, if you look at history and the studies on the subject, whilst there is probably a genetic comoponent to sexual preferences there is also undoubtedly an environmental component and somewhat of the ability to change preferences. People have gay experiences in prison for example, and as an example of the environmental effect second children are much more likely to be gay than firstborns.