You were doing pretty good until you stuck in that "I presume".
I think you're being naive if you claim that homosexual molestation would be reported if it had occurred 1000 years ago.
Perhaps, but suggesting that I'm naive isn't the same as offering proof that you are right. It's easy to say smugly, "Oh, you can't be so naive." Try finding some support other than your own personal wish that it be true.
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.
So far the only studies that have even suggested a genetic component have been performed by homosexuals and none of them have stood up under scrutiny. There is no repeatable study that supports a genetic "homosexuality." There is verified evidence that it is not genetic, including thousans of people who no longer suffer from the syndrome.
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.
At least this is a promising thesis. Can you provide any citation that this may be true?
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.
I didn't want to hear anything but your support for your assertions. Again, this is only supposition on your part. The idea of celibacy actually comes from something Paul wrote long before the Church was established. It is true that people who are married and have children are distracted from the job of shepherding the flock. The family can, and frequently does, cause some difficult choices to be made in those called by God to any purpose, whether clergy or lay. But that doesn't support the concept of a power trip as much as it does a concept of freeing an individual to answer God's call.
I've known a lot of Priests, even though I am not a Catholic. But I've never known a sexually frustrated one. Most adult men can live without sex and quite happily. The inability to live without sex would suggest a personality that was arrested in its development. Sex is a wonderful garnish in life, as long as it is maintained within the context of a heterosexual, monagomous marriage. But it is only a garnish. It is not a staple.
Shalom.
Smugly? You're the one who added a pinch of "smugly" with the little, "There, I've taken your workload from four assertions down to two" remark. And by making that claim, you took the burden of proof on yourself. Hey, I even led off by saying that I don’t have time for proving these things.
"There is verified evidence that it is not genetic, including thousands of people who no longer suffer from the syndrome."
So you say…
Thousand of people no longer suffer from the alcoholism "syndrome", but there's plenty of evidence to show that there's a genetic predisposition. Intelligence, athleticism, and all kinds of personality and aptitudes are somewhat genetic. It's just folk wisdom. But you're so certain that the predisposition to homosexuality is different. I find it interesting that people who otherwise seem fairly reasonable pull that "all or nothing argument" out with this one issue. (I'm good at math but one of my children isn't, so it must not be genitic, right?) It's as if the presence of genetically influenced homosexuality is inconsistent with their morality model, so the means (compromising their intellectual integrity ) justifies defeating whatever threatens it. It's no big deal though - most people are just like that. BTW, this isn't proof, but it's a reference to the evidence, and I bookmarked it a couple of days ago.
The source of the inheritance justification for celibacy in the Church was a guest of a substitute host to the Ollie North show 3-4 days ago who had been investigating sexual abuse in the Church for years. I was working and didn't catch her name.
" But I've never known a sexually frustrated one. "
Really, how would you know? I've only known one or two well behaved men in my life well enough to claim that I know if they're sexually frustrated or not, but I've known many wild men boys who wore their sexual frustration on their sleeve. The vast majority of healthy men have a sexual predator side to them if left on their desires, but they're civilized by reason, faith, various institutions, society and/or by women. I don’t think sexual desire just goes away any more than anger goes away when people are told not to express it. You can sense the effects of anger in people who don't release it. It just gets redirected. But I'm not prepared to prove that any more than I'm sure you're prepared to prove the half dozen assertions in your last post.
Shalom