Vatican attacked over cardinal's claim of homosexuality and paedophilia link

[Uncleskinny]

Someone that simply needs a sexual outlet is not going to turn to a child. They would have to be a pedophile in the first place. The Church is using the issue to attempt to condemn homosexuality, but what you are implying is that celibacy will make one more susceptible to engaging in pedophilia. You can't really say what is "normal" sexual behavior.

Did you even read what I said? It's the availability. Priests have a readier and more trusted access to a lot of children than most of us. So do teachers, but most of them have a sex life.

Peter

 

[anon x]

Did you even read what I said? It's the availability. Priests have a readier and more trusted access to a lot of children than most of us. So do teachers, but most of them have a sex life.

Availability,yes but the predilection for paedophilia has to be there too.
I don't think it arises out of sexual frustration.

 

[Dave]

Normal human nature is the presence of sexuality, not the absence of sexuality. In the strictured environment of priesthood, I can imagine that any outlet is a relief, and there are some more accessible than others. All the church has to do is recognise that human sexuality is normal, and deal with it. Suppressing it not normal and leads to situations such as the one they are now experiencing.

P.

So you are saying that celibacy leads to pedophilia?

I said nothing of the sort.

I said that the absence of sexual outlet is abnormal. If you are a sexually frustrated priest, you are going to find the most vulnerable, the easiest prey for your outlet.

Sexual activity is normal. It's human. Priests are human. The situation they find themselves in makes any trusting and vulnerable outlets for their sexuality targets.

P.

Someone that simply needs a sexual outlet is not going to turn to a child. They would have to be a pedophile in the first place. The Church is using the issue to attempt to condemn homosexuality, but what you are implying is that celibacy will make one more susceptible to engaging in pedophilia. You can't really say what is "normal" sexual behavior.

Did you even read what I said? It's the availability. Priests have a readier and more trusted access to a lot of children than most of us. So do teachers, but most of them have a sex life.

Peter

You might compare this to a situation in prison where men will sometimes have sex with other men, because they feel they need a release, and that is all that is available. (Whether or not this is a valid argument doesn't matter for the purposes of this comparison.)

Problem is that priests are not locked up in prison with children. Surely a priest could put on street clothes and find sex with an adult with far less risk if it were simply about an outlet.

Now, these priests we are reading about have multiple victims over a span of years.

Are you saying that they are not pedophiles or inclined towards pedophilia when they enter the priesthood?

Because if not, we have two choices. Either the restrictions of the church caused them to become pedophiles, or they are having sex with children but they are not pedophiles. You don't want to claim the former, and the latter is false by definition.

 

[Black Cloud]

I work with abuse victims in a professional capacity. Neither homosexuality nor celibacy have anything to do with pedophilia, and anybody who thinks so is ill informed. Most perpetrators of abuse on children were themselves victims, although not all. They do tend to gravitate toward situations where they can disappear behind some kind of official uniform/function. In some cases it's because they're stalking their prey, but in other cases it's because they are struggling with impulses that they know are wrong, and they believe that the structure of religious, military, or other institutional life will assist them in controlling these impulses.

My experience has led me to believe that you should never leave your kids alone with anybody, ever. OK, maybe your mom. Also, little kids should be given tasers.

 

[The Cat's Mother]

Most perpetrators of abuse on children were themselves victims, although not all. They do tend to gravitate toward situations where they can disappear behind some kind of official uniform/function. In some cases it's because they're stalking their prey, but in other cases it's because they are struggling with impulses that they know are wrong, and they believe that the structure of religious, military, or other institutional life will assist them in controlling these impulses.

That's tied in with something I've wondered about re paedophiles in the priesthood; that some individuals hope that celibacy will make their sexual preferences irrelevant and will free them of the possibility that they might act on their desires. It might indeed work for some people - although they're hardly likely to stand up and be counted in a society that demonises offender and non-offender alike.

 

[Barking]

Priests have a readier and more trusted access to a lot of children than most of us. So do teachers, but most of them have a sex life.

(Anyway, if you don't know the thrill of being fancied by a 14 year old, you haven't lived yet.) head-smack

 

[dunya]

I think some might have gravitated towards the Church knowing the chance of being brought to account was less than in an environment where their status was more likely to be questioned. The cover-ups facilitated further abuse.

They show willing to shift the blame somewhere, anywhere else. But not to accept responsibility.

So why do paedophiles exist? Born that way, or through life experiences?
A mix of reasons?