Cardinal George Pell, convicted paedophile

[Tom Sawyer]

I forget the study. But I've seen research to show that in countries where homosexuality is illegal, they have big problems with gays molesting children. There's child prostitution. In liberal countries where gays are allowed to get on with it and aren't shamed for the proclivities these problems largely disappear. They become rare events. That's not gay bashing or gay shaming. That's just what happens when you force normal and otherwise well adjusted people to live a lie. Children will always be vulnerable to desperate people.

Can that be tied to repression of homosexuality as opposed to repression of sexuality in general, though? I'm unaware of any "liberal and open about heterosexual sex but conservative and repressive about homosexual sex" countries out there. I do get the whole "sexual repression breeds perversion" thing, but I don't see why homosexuality would be a key factor in your example as opposed to it being an irrelevant factor.

And it's not just gays. The Catholic church produces broken people. Everybody who has grown up Catholic has bizarre shame based hang-ups around sex. The weirdest kinky girls I've ever had sex with have all been Catholic. I do not think that's a coincidence. It's as if the Catholic church is designed to create sexually dysfunctional people. All that shame is not healthy for anyone. Imagine growing up in an entire Catholic culture? How fucked up would those people all get?

That is a good point about what would distinguish it from the other organizations I brought up. I fail to see, however, why homosexuality would be some kind of important factor in all that as opposed to not being a particularly relevant one. If it just so happens that Catholic society has gay men gravitate more towards the priesthood and it just so happens that the repressive nature of living as a priest in the Catholic Church breeds sexual perversions such as child molestation, then there would be a correlation between gay priests and child molesters. That is very different, however, than making the statement that their being gay is one of the causative factors in that molestation.

 

[ruby sparks]

If it just so happens that Catholic society has gay men gravitate more towards the priesthood.........

This made me want to google. I found this 2007 US study (which in its introduction references other studies) which suggest that gay men do gravitate towards the priesthood.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11089-006-0051-0

"While there are no official estimates of the number of homosexual men in the priesthood, best current estimates range from 10% to 60% (Cozzens, 2000) with most experts and authorities who have access to this information more closely estimating between 25% and 40% (Plante, 2004, 2005; Sipe, 2004). Regardless of the most accurate figures, it is clear that there is a higher proportion of homosexual priests than homosexual men in the general population (Sipe, 2004) and that a substantial number of the 46,000 priests in the United States are indeed homosexual (Cozzens, 2000)."

I didn't read the study, which then goes on to ask if the homosexual applicants are psychologically healthy, and I'm not picking up on your point, or DrZoidberg's.

I myself was just not aware if gay men gravitated towards the priesthood or not, that's all.

 

[ruby sparks]

The word on the street seems to be that homosexuality is not a risk factor for pedophilia, and that suggestions from some church leaders that the Catholic Church ban homosexual men from becoming priests is misguided, at least as a response to sex abuse and associated scandals.

No, homosexuality is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children
https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...xuality-not-risk-factor-sexual-abuse-children

Though after a bit of googling, I got the impression that it's not really settled or properly known. And that it's complicated. I got the impression that what might be said is that there is currently no good reason to think it is (as opposed to good reason to say it isn't). But others here may know of relevant data that I didn't come across.

(One interesting comment involved the observation that if a pedophile male assaults a female child, they are generally not labelled as 'heterosexual', just as 'pedophile').

Does the above (prior to the last sentence in brackets) raise an interesting question? If homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, and if (if, I have no data) pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood, but there is no significant crossover between the two groups*, then......is the combined total of pedophiles and homosexuals in the priesthood rather large, in percentage terms (compared to the general population)? Or am I not combining hypothetical stats correctly (or meaningfully)? Obviously I am not conflating homosexuality (which is benign) with pedophilia (which isn't benign).

*ETA: this is probably moot, because there would be crossover (as there would be in the general population) just not to the extent that homosexuality was a risk factor, because risk factor or not, there would, presumably, be some pedophiles who are also homosexual.

I think I've just confused myself a lot and should have thought more before posting.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Does the above raise an interesting question? If homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, and if (if, I have no data) pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood, but there is no significant correlation between the two, then......is the combined total of priests and homosexuals in the priesthood rather large, in percentage terms (compared to the general population)?

Not necessarily.
It could also be true, and unrelated, that authoritarians are drawn to the priesthood, maybe because the rules and hierarchy are so cut and dried.
It could also be true, as a discrete fact, that sadists are drawn to the priesthood in the hopes of administering vicious penance.
It could also be true that some pretty decent people are drawn to the priesthood. God only knows why.

Ultimately, the density of any specific group or leaning within the priesthood is just mostly unmeasured. Just like any other group. I mean, it's certain that some gays joined the military expressly to be in an all-male environment, while some heteros joined in the specific hope the uniform would help them get laid. But getting survey information about either population was complicated by people knowing they were expected to say 'For the patriotism!' or 'To see the world!'

 

[ruby sparks]

Does the above raise an interesting question? If homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, and if (if, I have no data) pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood, but there is no significant correlation between the two, then......is the combined total of priests and homosexuals in the priesthood rather large, in percentage terms (compared to the general population)?

Not necessarily.
It could also be true, and unrelated, that authoritarians are drawn to the priesthood, maybe because the rules and hierarchy are so cut and dried.
It could also be true, as a discrete fact, that sadists are drawn to the priesthood in the hopes of administering vicious penance.
It could also be true that some pretty decent people are drawn to the priesthood. God only knows why.

Ultimately, the density of any specific group or leaning within the priesthood is just mostly unmeasured. Just like any other group. I mean, it's certain that some gays joined the military expressly to be in an all-male environment, while some heteros joined in the specific hope the uniform would help them get laid. But getting survey information about either population was complicated by people knowing they were expected to say 'For the patriotism!' or 'To see the world!'

Good points.

Just specifically on whether gay men are drawn to the priesthood, the study above is from The Journal of Pastoral Psychology, and one of the studies it references is from The Liturgical Press, and Richard Sipe (who is cited at least twice) is a Benedictine monk-priest (not sure what that is but can guess), so........the data suggesting that gay men are drawn to (and are 'over-represented' in) the priesthood seems at least to be based on 'sympathetic' or 'inside' studies.

Although nonetheless, would one not expect that the numbers are more likely to be under self-reported rather than over self-reported, partly for the reasons you suggest?

I suppose hypothetically, one could have priests who are pedophiles that are attracted to boys admitting to being gay, due to it being ok, or more ok (within the church) to say that. Now I'm speculating more than I would like to.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Does the above (prior to the last sentence in brackets) raise an interesting question? If homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, and if (if, I have no data) pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood, but there is no significant crossover between the two groups*, then......is the combined total of pedophiles and homosexuals in the priesthood rather large, in percentage terms (compared to the general population)? Or am I not combining hypothetical stats correctly (or meaningfully)? Obviously I am not conflating homosexuality (which is benign) with pedophilia (which isn't benign).

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

It could just be that the old adage of "sexual repression breeds perversion" turns out to be true. They are repressed sexually and they have these groups of young children around available to them as sexual outlets and so they molest them because that's what's available. If they'd been assigned to a different place, they'd be a part of the group of priests who were raping nuns instead of the group of priests who were raping children. It's like how some inmates have sex with other men while in prison. It's not because they're gay, but because they need an outlet for their sexual energy and that's what's available, so they beat on some weaker guy until he agrees to be their bitch.

 

[Keith&Co.]

and Richard Sipe (who is cited at least twice) is a Benedictine monk-priest (not sure what that is but can guess), so........the data suggesting that gay men are drawn to (and are 'over-represented' in) the priesthood seems at least to be based on 'sympathetic' or 'inside' studies.

Well, according to Freud we all do everything for sex.
I don't THINK sex drove me to joining the Navy, as much as GETTING THE HELL OUT OF IDAHO, and I really think I volunteered subs because that appeared more exotic than a surface ship, though I must admit they are long, hard and full of seamen....

I did note that some of my shipmates were gay, but I wasn't specifically looking for gays, either in or out of the service, so I don't really KNOW that gays are or are not overrepresented in either population. But I'd be suspicious that anyone LOOKING for gays in a group will FIND gays in that group. If it's an 'inside' study, that's less formal, and less protected against confirmation bias.

Although nonetheless, would one not expect that the numbers are more likely to be under self-reported rather than over self-reported, partly for the reasons you suggest?

That would depend on the outlook of the reporter, wouldn't it? If someone's trying to normalize homosexuality, they're going to overestimate the presence, the influence, the numbers of largely non-predatory, 'normal' members. Or if they're trying to generate fear, they exaggerate....

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

But a big benefit is that once you're in, you're in, and no fellow priest is ever going to rat you out. You'll never have to face a courtroom or prison because someone on the inside recognizes criminal behavior.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I forget the study. But I've seen research to show that in countries where homosexuality is illegal, they have big problems with gays molesting children. There's child prostitution. In liberal countries where gays are allowed to get on with it and aren't shamed for the proclivities these problems largely disappear. They become rare events. That's not gay bashing or gay shaming. That's just what happens when you force normal and otherwise well adjusted people to live a lie. Children will always be vulnerable to desperate people.

Can that be tied to repression of homosexuality as opposed to repression of sexuality in general, though? I'm unaware of any "liberal and open about heterosexual sex but conservative and repressive about homosexual sex" countries out there. I do get the whole "sexual repression breeds perversion" thing, but I don't see why homosexuality would be a key factor in your example as opposed to it being an irrelevant factor.

I think in conservative and sexually repressive countries they typically have a well developed prostitution industry. I doubt there exists an example of that not being true. So if a straight man in those cultures has great sexual urges and needs, those can easily be met. Being gay has a whole other set of hoops to jump through.

So most likely there's a similar psychological mechanic for heterosexuals. It's just that we rarely see it happening. Because sexually aggressive males rarely get desperate enough. Or it's just not been studied. I haven't seen papers on it. This is a sort of thing that is hard to study. Conservative cultures aren't exactly forthcoming with sensitive information. When it comes to studying homosexuality we have loads of old gay men who now live in sexually liberal countries who grew up in conservative countries. So it's extremely easy to study and compare the differences.

And all gay men (and women) have all had to take a hard look inward and sort their own sexual feelings out. It comes with being gay. Which makes them excellent to study for this. A straight man can blunder through life, never knowing what he wants or knowing where he's going, and still have a nice life. There's a very straight and well lit road ahead of them to follow. So straight men can repress all kinds of things their entire life and it will likely never cause a serious problem for them.

And it's not just gays. The Catholic church produces broken people. Everybody who has grown up Catholic has bizarre shame based hang-ups around sex. The weirdest kinky girls I've ever had sex with have all been Catholic. I do not think that's a coincidence. It's as if the Catholic church is designed to create sexually dysfunctional people. All that shame is not healthy for anyone. Imagine growing up in an entire Catholic culture? How fucked up would those people all get?

That is a good point about what would distinguish it from the other organizations I brought up. I fail to see, however, why homosexuality would be some kind of important factor in all that as opposed to not being a particularly relevant one. If it just so happens that Catholic society has gay men gravitate more towards the priesthood and it just so happens that the repressive nature of living as a priest in the Catholic Church breeds sexual perversions such as child molestation, then there would be a correlation between gay priests and child molesters. That is very different, however, than making the statement that their being gay is one of the causative factors in that molestation.

There are no altar girls. While young Catholic boys are in the line of fire. Young Catholic girls are not. The Catholic priesthood will attract normal gay men with normal degree of sexual needs. The Catholic church is seen as a refuge for gay men. I'm speculating now, but the straights who are attracted to becoming Catholic priests perhaps don't have powerful libidos? Maybe they're not so horny? So they're less likely to molest anyone. And if a Catholic man strays and feels the need to act on having sex, it's a low bar to cross. How hard can it be for a straight priests to find a woman to fuck? What young Catholic woman wouldn't be attracted to that? It's got all the ingredients of exciting and great sex. It's a man of power and influence, in a uniform and it's taboo! I'm guessing it's quite common.

So I do think homosexuality is a factor here.

 

[DBT]

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

But a big benefit is that once you're in, you're in, and no fellow priest is ever going to rat you out. You'll never have to face a courtroom or prison because someone on the inside recognizes criminal behavior.

Which is a demonstration of where their priorities and allegiances actually lie.

Not with the God they profess to believe in and His purported Moral values, but their own interests, their own fraternity, fellow priests and the Church.

The consequences of their actions seems not to be considered important in terms of the things they profess to believe, the ultimate authority of God and the Judgment to come.

Why, it's like they don't actually believe in the things they profess to believe. Just lip service. A job description.

 

[ruby sparks]

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

That is true.

It could just be that the old adage of "sexual repression breeds perversion" turns out to be true. They are repressed sexually and they have these groups of young children around available to them as sexual outlets and so they molest them because that's what's available. If they'd been assigned to a different place, they'd be a part of the group of priests who were raping nuns instead of the group of priests who were raping children. It's like how some inmates have sex with other men while in prison. It's not because they're gay, but because they need an outlet for their sexual energy and that's what's available, so they beat on some weaker guy until he agrees to be their bitch.

It could be something like that. I think my main problem is that we are all pretty much speculating.

- - - Updated - - -

Although nonetheless, would one not expect that the numbers are more likely to be under self-reported rather than over self-reported, partly for the reasons you suggest?

That would depend on the outlook of the reporter, wouldn't it? If someone's trying to normalize homosexuality, they're going to overestimate the presence, the influence, the numbers of largely non-predatory, 'normal' members. Or if they're trying to generate fear, they exaggerate....

The reporter in self-reporting is the person saying things about themselves.

But in principle and in general, it is true that we should not easily draw conclusions from studies. That said, empirical studies are generally better than anecdotes, personal opinion and speculation, no matter how plausible, and when (as seems to be the case here) several studies show something similar, I think it's reasonable to start thinking that it might be the case (that gay men are at least to some extent over-represented in the priesthood) with caveats about waiting to see further data and retaining the possibility that it is not in fact the case. And of course not assuming that if one meets a priest that he is gay just because there may be over-representation at a statistical level. And beyond mere 'counting', the reasons might be varied and complicated.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

But a big benefit is that once you're in, you're in, and no fellow priest is ever going to rat you out. You'll never have to face a courtroom or prison because someone on the inside recognizes criminal behavior.

Which is a demonstration of where their priorities and allegiances actually lie.

Not with the God they profess to believe in and His purported Moral values, but their own interests, their own fraternity, fellow priests and the Church.

The consequences of their actions seems not to be considered important in terms of the things they profess to believe, the ultimate authority of God and the Judgment to come.

Why, it's like they don't actually believe in the things they profess to believe. Just lip service. A job description.

Never mind whether a criminal priest is gay or straight, I just think it is enormously revealing that there has never been a case where a priest ratted out his fellow priest for this kind of behavior. It has always been orthodox to hide the criminal behavior and protect the criminal. In the end the reputation and power of Mother Church has always been more important than any one child or any thousand children. This is what makes the organization vile.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which is a demonstration of where their priorities and allegiances actually lie.

Not with the God they profess to believe in and His purported Moral values, but their own interests, their own fraternity, fellow priests and the Church.

The consequences of their actions seems not to be considered important in terms of the things they profess to believe, the ultimate authority of God and the Judgment to come.

Why, it's like they don't actually believe in the things they profess to believe. Just lip service. A job description.

Never mind whether a criminal priest is gay or straight, I just think it is enormously revealing that there has never been a case where a priest ratted out his fellow priest for this kind of behavior. It has always been orthodox to hide the criminal behavior and protect the criminal. In the end the reputation and power of Mother Church has always been more important than any one child or any thousand children. This is what makes the organization vile.

They're not allowed to rat eachother out. If somebody confesses a sin to them the priest has made a vow of silence not to tell anyone. The very nature of the Catholic church has created this problem. Let's call it a loophole abusers can exploit.

Anyhoo... So it's not strange they've been so good at keeping a lid on it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Does the above (prior to the last sentence in brackets) raise an interesting question? If homosexuals are drawn to the priesthood, and if (if, I have no data) pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood, but there is no significant crossover between the two groups*, then......is the combined total of pedophiles and homosexuals in the priesthood rather large, in percentage terms (compared to the general population)? Or am I not combining hypothetical stats correctly (or meaningfully)? Obviously I am not conflating homosexuality (which is benign) with pedophilia (which isn't benign).

While it may be that pedophiles are drawn to the priesthood as a way to hunt down their victims, Dr Z raised the very valid point earlier that getting into the priesthood is a very long and arduous process and a very long and overly complicated way of going about this. It's not like signing up as a minor league hockey coach where there are very few hurdles to get through.

It could just be that the old adage of "sexual repression breeds perversion" turns out to be true. They are repressed sexually and they have these groups of young children around available to them as sexual outlets and so they molest them because that's what's available. If they'd been assigned to a different place, they'd be a part of the group of priests who were raping nuns instead of the group of priests who were raping children. It's like how some inmates have sex with other men while in prison. It's not because they're gay, but because they need an outlet for their sexual energy and that's what's available, so they beat on some weaker guy until he agrees to be their bitch.

My suspicion is that it's a combination of these. It isn't that men who are fully aware they are pedophiles hatch a conscious plan to become priests for the sole purpose of using their position to rape kids. Rather, the proclivity toward pedophilia begins as more of a undefined sexual dysfunction about which the person is quite ashamed and refuses to admit to themselves. They view the priesthood as a place to escape from their shame and their sexual dysfunction by entering a profession where they must repress their sexuality no matter what it is. So now they are no longer someone who must repress their sexual urges b/c they are perverted and immoral, but simply a priest who must suppress their urges out of noble piety.
IOW, the celibacy vows provide a place for those with sexual dysfunction to hide from everyone, themselves, and from God without their lack of an open sex life raising suspicions.

This same excuse to be asexual attracts a disproportionate number of pedophiles, but also homosexuals, with the difference being that it is societies fault that the homosexuals would want to repress and escape their sexuality. It's possible that sexual repression does itself cause some degree of perversion, but I am skeptical that it would lead to real pedophilia, especially of the serial sort with younger kids (i.e., not just sex with one 16 year old), unless the person was already psychologically predisposed to it.

Note this only answers who pedophiles and homosexuals are over represented in the clergy. It doesn't answer why 70% of the child victims of priests are boys. I don't think the priests who do this are majority "homosexual" in any valid sense of sexual orientation and attraction. Also, given that 80% of child sex abuse victims in the general pop are girls, this means it is something particular about the context of the priesthood and there are not enough actual homosexuals in the priesthood to account for the ratio of boys who are molested by priests. The choice of victims may have a lot to do with mere convenience, and priests spend far more time alone with boys than girls.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Which is a demonstration of where their priorities and allegiances actually lie.

Not with the God they profess to believe in and His purported Moral values, but their own interests, their own fraternity, fellow priests and the Church.

The consequences of their actions seems not to be considered important in terms of the things they profess to believe, the ultimate authority of God and the Judgment to come.

Why, it's like they don't actually believe in the things they profess to believe. Just lip service. A job description.

Never mind whether a criminal priest is gay or straight, I just think it is enormously revealing that there has never been a case where a priest ratted out his fellow priest for this kind of behavior. It has always been orthodox to hide the criminal behavior and protect the criminal. In the end the reputation and power of Mother Church has always been more important than any one child or any thousand children. This is what makes the organization vile.

They're not allowed to rat eachother out. If somebody confesses a sin to them the priest has made a vow of silence not to tell anyone. The very nature of the Catholic church has created this problem. Let's call it a loophole abusers can exploit.

Anyhoo... So it's not strange they've been so good at keeping a lid on it.

You missed the sound of the jet that just passed over your head.

 

[DBT]

I tend to imagine that the Allegiance of a Priest would have to be, first and foremost, with the God they profess to believe in and worship.

 

[bilby]

I tend to imagine that the Allegiance of a Priest would have to be, first and foremost, with the God they profess to believe in and worship.

Well that's the problem. If a colleague has done something vile, then there's no need to dob him in to the authorities, if you believe that the ultimate authority already knows.

That's a reasonable position to take; But it falls apart if the ultimate authority doesn't exist, and your beliefs are erroneous.

 

[DrZoidberg]

They're not allowed to rat eachother out. If somebody confesses a sin to them the priest has made a vow of silence not to tell anyone. The very nature of the Catholic church has created this problem. Let's call it a loophole abusers can exploit.

Anyhoo... So it's not strange they've been so good at keeping a lid on it.

You missed the sound of the jet that just passed over your head.

I think confessions are actually a good thing about the Catholic church. As any therapist can tell you. When we've done something bad our natural inclinations is to outright deny it. To ourselves. The first step to recovery is just admitting it. It's often easier to admit it together with others, than doing the work ourselves. But we need to do it to somebody we can trust. That's where the vow of silence comes in. I think it's a really smart system. It's only becomes a problem when priests confess to each other about problems in the church. As it guarantees the problem not being fixed, since that would break the vow of silence.

But there's an obvious solution to the problem. Catholic priests aren't allowed to confess to each other. Or confess to priests of some other religion.

 

[DBT]

I tend to imagine that the Allegiance of a Priest would have to be, first and foremost, with the God they profess to believe in and worship.

Well that's the problem. If a colleague has done something vile, then there's no need to dob him in to the authorities, if you believe that the ultimate authority already knows.

That's a reasonable position to take; But it falls apart if the ultimate authority doesn't exist, and your beliefs are erroneous.

Doesn't their allegiance to the Church and their fellow priests ignore the wishes of God as they believe them to be? After all, they were once quite prepared to burn people for heresy or witchcraft...being quite prepared to act on the behalf of God and not leave these 'onerous' tasks to God in the afterlife?

 

[bilby]

I tend to imagine that the Allegiance of a Priest would have to be, first and foremost, with the God they profess to believe in and worship.

Well that's the problem. If a colleague has done something vile, then there's no need to dob him in to the authorities, if you believe that the ultimate authority already knows.

That's a reasonable position to take; But it falls apart if the ultimate authority doesn't exist, and your beliefs are erroneous.

Doesn't their allegiance to the Church and their fellow priests ignore the wishes of God as they believe them to be? After all, they were once quite prepared to burn people for heresy or witchcraft...being quite prepared to act on the behalf of God and not leave these 'onerous' tasks to God in the afterlife?

Nah, it all ties together. If god didn't want the suspected heretic to be tortured to death, then he wouldn't have put the suspicion into the mind of the inquisitor. And in the unlikely event that the suspect was blameless, he attained eternal paradise, so no harm done.

Whereas if a priest is guilty, but through an absence of suitable action on the part of his colleagues, he gets away with it, then god will fix it all up once he dies, so no harm done.

Belief in an all powerful god permits the justification of any atrocity. That's its power and its evil.