Replies

Lurkers: Yes, there are some bad people who have gotten into the Catholic church. Are they representative of the Church at large? Here is a study done regarding the priesthood.

This accusation usually comes up in the context of Protestants suggesting that we Catholics should do away with priestly celibacy. I haven’t taken the time to edit it, so please understand I don’t think all of the words apply here, just the statistics.

If priests were allowed to marry, like Rabbi's or Lutheran ministers, the problem would go away.

Actually, you are dead wrong. From Pedophiles and Priests the only scholarly review on the issue I know of:

1. How widespread is pedophilia among priests?

Commentators have suggested between 5 and 10 percent. That figure has been presented by various "experts" and widely used by the media. However, true pedophilia--sexual contact between an adult and pre-pubescent child--is extremely rare in the priesthood. The best estimate is "0.3 percent of the whole body of clergy." (p 82) The most extensive study which considered 2,252 priests over a thirty year period found only one case of pedophilia. It involved a priest-uncle with two six-year-old nieces. The number of pederasts or ephebophiles (priests involved, usually homosexually, with an adolescent minor) was much larger, but still less than two percent. Jenkins traces how those figures were blown up and presented without nuance in the media. 3. Does the celibacy requirement increase the likelihood that a priest will be a sex offender? Jenkins details how the media accounts of clergy sex abuse emphasized not only "cover up" but the celibacy factor. The view presented repeatedly was that the type of formation around this unrealistic requirement contributed to the supposed widespread sex abuse among priests. However, the difficulty with the argument is that there is no proof the problem is greater among priests than Protestant ministers—or even other service professionals, like teachers or physicians. It is worth noting that while the case involving former priest James Porter received massive media attention, the equally scandalous case of Protestant minister Tony Leyva got only limited coverage.

The difference in coverage and the emphasis on the celibacy requirement cannot wholly be blamed on anti-Catholic bias in the secular media. In fact, as Jenkins documents, much of the fuel came from division within the Catholic Church. Those advocating married clergy and women priests jumped on this crisis to promote their cause. On the other side conservatives pointed out that most of the cases went back to the 60's, a time when the Church began to absorb the general laxness in sexual morality. Also since most of the cases involved homosexual activity, they questioned the wisdom of ordaining men with a gay orientation. However, as Jenkins shows, the conservatives had little success in promoting their view. The crisis was inevitably seen as a failure of a bankrupt all male hierarchy, repressive seminary formation, moral rigidity, anti-woman bias and other bete noires of liberal Catholics.

The suggestion that pedophilia is more widespread among the clergy is propaganda. However, some people are determined to believe otherwise.

This Boston situation (and all the other pedophile cases from all the other dioceses in the US) have *nothing* to do with "doctrine." Most of us here are on the same page regarding sex with children. We agree it's wrong. But the Catholic Church in this country is NOT helped by people sticking their heads in the sand and yelling "Catholic bashing!" every time these stories break.

As someone linked above, there are possibly more than 50 priests who have potentially been involved in *child* sex abuse in the Boston archdiocese *alone.* This is a shocking number, especially as male-homosexual pedophilia is considered to be far rarer than the heterosexual kind (men abusing girls.)

Ending priestly celibacy for parish priests would go a long way toward fixing the problem the church now faces. The problem isn't just the pedophile priests it's the church hierarchy that has been protecting them. They protect them because there is a shortage of priests and a protect your own mentality in the upper levels of the priesthood. In the Boston case Cardinal Law himself. Some of the letters he wrote to the scum passing himself off as a priest were completely out of touch with the severity of the situation (and I'm putting this nicely). Law instead of stepping down has done the Clinton thing and decided to prolong this by trying to keep his office. Placing his own vanity and lust for power over the good of the church.

Now with a strong non-celibate community of priests these losers who are after their own sick gratification would be exposed sooner rather than later. With married priests who have another career to fall back on, they could easily put up with the kind of treatment whistle blowing usually incurs. Will it be perfect? No. But I can only see it as a major improvement over the way things are now.