This whole thing turns my stomach - but the one thing I agree with him on is that celibacy teachings may be largely responsible for the rampant homosexuality and child abuse. I suspect if priests were allowed (not encouraged, but allowed) to marry, much of this might be avoided. After all, Scripture says that it’s better to marry than to burn.
Most sexual abusers are not celibate. Most sexual abusers are married. Why would celibacy make a heterosexual go after a member of the same sex and much less a child? Do you skip over the Scripture in which Jesus talks about eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven? Do you skip over the Scriptures in which Paul talks about the beauty of virginity and tells one not to take a husband or wife if one doesn’t have one because the time is short, though he does permit marriage?
Start with the fact that less than 5% of the Catholic Priesthood was ever involved in the sex abuse scandals.
Then, understand that almost all of the victims were MALES.
Then, understand that almost all of the victims were past the age of puberty.
It was all very wrong, and criminal. However, it was NOT the clinical definition of “pedophilia” since almost all of the victims were post-pubescent males.
Instead, this is mostly a problem of homosexual predators entering the Priesthood.
Not all homosexuals are predators, in fact, few are. Less than 5% of Priests are predators. Almost all of the offenders in these cases were homosexual predators. How does allowing Priests to get married solve that problem?
Of course, it doesn't.
If you follow this sick ugliness which you cannot avoid with some Freepers posting (Which is there right)about it. The idea of Married men not doing abuse is very wrong. Natural Fathers are higher than priests in abuse percentages. So are Teachers and Coaches. The whole thing is just ugly. I learned most of this by checking the sources of these type of posts. It is disgusting subject but needs to be discussed at times. May God Help these little Ones.
The problem, I think, is that many men with a homosexual tendency AND a strong religious feeling sought out the priesthood, either because they wished to escape their homosexuality, or because they felt no call to marriage and thought that they should serve the Church instead.
When they were exposed to a temptation in seminary or later, some succumbed and then justified it to themselves.
IMO it isn’t celibacy as such that is the problem but a poor discernment process, the bishops being unwilling to take action that reduce the number of men entering the priesthood, and a degree of outright corruption.
A priest once told a friend of mine, speaking of the days when boys entered seminary in their teens, “At that age you are programmed to fall in love.”
That makes zero sense.
If a Priest needed to have sex, then he could pursue women like any other cheating man, change clothes and hit the clubs across town, or buy a hooker, or if you were really low, submit to one of the many females that come on to the collar.
I doubt that the celibacy rule is "responsible" for causing child sex abuse. That doesn't make sense. If priests were going to violate celibacy, they could do it with an adult woman too.
What may happen though is that the rule causes a self-selection process among men who became priests. Men who are not attracted to women or interested in marriage may think the priesthood is where they fit in. But those men are more likely to have these perverse desires that they may or may not be trying to suppress. So if there was no celibacy rule, you might get more priests overall due to more married heterosexual priests, but not necessarily less pedophiles. The percentage of pedophiles would be down but only due to the same number of them being part of a larger pool.
Considering the fact that less than 2% of priests have even been accused of child abuse, and that's about par with other men in this country, I don't see how celibacy could be the issue here. And if a priest is in a homosexual relationship, he's not trying to be celibate, anyway.