argee: Each of these statements needs some support before they can be accepted.
elfman2: If only I had that kind of time...
I can save you a little time. There is no good statistical information on how many people suffer Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) now, and there certainly isn't good information for all of history, so you probably will never be able to support the first assertion. You can stand on the current statement that SAD is genetic and occurs in a proportion that hasn't changed, but there is not even support for the idea that it is genetic and plenty of support for the counter idea.
As far as priests diddling little boys, I doubt there are any records at all. There may have been a very small number, but it has not been a crisis for thousands of years or it would be recorded. You may be asserting that other cultures would never have outed the Catholic Church the way we have, but that's a tad arrogant an more than a little myopic. The Church has always had enemies and they have always been looking for fodder to harm her.
"Homosexuals are naturally attracted to the church." You may be able to support that one, and I'd like to see it. Since the Church is by its nature anti-SAD, it would be sort of like moths being attracted to a fire, wouldn't it?
Finally, I am very interested in what kind of power you think the celebacy thing gives the Church.
There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two. I am very interested in your support for those two.
Shalom.
I used to have a book called, "An Underground History" that, among hundreds of shocking stories, had a section that listed dozens of incidents of sexual and homosexual abuse and criminality by early popes. I presume all that didn't just exist at the top.
I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago. Even today, people are reluctant to speak of it, yet unlike 1000 years ago, they now know that they won't be killed. Today they have a moderate society reassuring them that it's not their fault, that it doesn't mean they're gay, and that they're not ruined as a man. They also have a legal system that's more or less stronger than the Church, lawyers promising them millions and a media that's more bold than even a few decades ago when presidential and celebrity dalliances were ignored. 1000 years ago I'm sure there was the routine equivalent of lying under oath, trading arms for hostages and bugging political opposition, and I'm sure it exists around the world today, but in few places beyond America today does it threaten presidencies.
I recall at least one study that linked a smaller hypothalamus to homosexuality, and at least one separated-at-birth twin study that showed a very significant pattern of genetic homosexuality. And just from my personal experience, I've seen a tendency for lesbians to have faces that look like they were built with a little more testosterone than those of most women (beyond the makeup, clothing and behavior effect in my judgement), but that's just incidental.
Until 40 years ago, most of our society was anti-gay (or anti-SAD as you say). But the Church promoted a culture of forgiveness where all the brotherhood's sexual desires were something to be repressed. It may have been like a moth's flame as you suggest, but with the numerous enemies of the Catholic Church, a culture of protection and cover up was probably already in place to keep them from being burned.
In response to your question, I understand the celibacy rules were initially put in place to keep wealth in the Church. The clergy were willing their personal/Church property to descendants. Also, I heard that the Church sometimes found itself responsible for widows and children of a dead priest, but that doesn't seem to be so significant to me.
But more in line with what I'm sure you're interested in hearing from me, you know that their's without question something to be said for stripping distractions out of the lives of people to get the most from them and to redirect their focus. (i.e. military boot camp?) If the Church can make that work for a lifetime, more power to them. But if their sexually frustrated and frequently homosexual inclined priests are going to allowed to be alone with innocent, nubile little teenage boys, it's going to be a very expensive policy in a free and litigious society.
"There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two"
{smile} uh-huh.
Shalom.