A touchy subject, I guess

Originally posted by Starrman
But neither of these pathologies refute the possibility that the priesthood as an institution (not a religious entity for the moment) may progenerate molestation?

No; but it does refute the most common "solutions" propagated by the media (e.g. on clerical celibacy).

EDIT: I don't think the nature of the priesthood actually "attracts" molesters in any significant manner (in the sense of "Oh gee, I want to become a priest as I have access to all these kids" ). However, I believe there are factors in the way American seminaries function that make it more likely for a potential molester to stay on.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No; but it does refute the most common "solutions" propagated by the media (e.g. on clerical celibacy).

EDIT: I don't think the nature of the priesthood actually "attracts" molesters in any significant manner (in the sense of "Oh gee, I want to become a priest as I have access to all these kids" ). However, I believe there are factors in the way American seminaries function that make it more likely for a potential molester to stay on.

I agree, if a molester were to choose a job, something like a school janitor or some such would be a more likely choice.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
First of all, it is important to remember that only 0.3% of priests are actually child molesters (pedophiles). The majority of cases relate to molesters of adolescents (ephebophilia) - which has a different pathology.

How are these figures calculated?

Certainly there is an enormous selection bias in that molesters don't usually volunteer to disclose their penchant for children. We only count those that are implicated and (probably) convicted.

Are some occupations more likely to conceal molesters than others? The concealment may be due to intentional (deliberate cover-up by superiors) or unintentional (one job is more transparent than another, e.g. school teacher vs. psychiatrist) forces.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No; but it does refute the most common "solutions" propagated by the media (e.g. on clerical celibacy).

EDIT: I don't think the nature of the priesthood actually "attracts" molesters in any significant manner (in the sense of "Oh gee, I want to become a priest as I have access to all these kids" ). However, I believe there are factors in the way American seminaries function that make it more likely for a potential molester to stay on.

I tend to agree. Although I have seen some exposes on the subject of child molestation that said that they do try to find occupations that will give them one-on-one private contact with children. In one case the perpetrator gave childrens gymanistics lessons.

I would think that if a molester chose to become a priest for the sole purpose of contacting children, he/she would have to be one incredibly messed up individual (more so than regular molesters). Think of all the constant guilty and condemnation you'd be subjecting yourself to by virtue of the institution.

Originally posted by telerion
How are these figures calculated?

Certainly there is an enormous selection bias in that molesters don't usually volunteer to disclose their penchant for children. We only count those that are implicated and (probably) convicted.

Are some occupations more likely to conceal molesters than others? The concealment may be due to intentional (deliberat ...[text shortened]... ntional (one job is more transparent than another, e.g. school teacher vs. psychiatrist) forces.

How are these figures calculated?

The figures are from Philip Jenkins' Pedophiles and Priests, OUP (2001). He studied 2,252 priests over a thirty-year period.

Originally posted by David C
[b]Davie, what's your case? Is pedophilia a favourite Christian past-time? It's blatantly and repeatedly condemned - and should be by the church and population.

I don't recall having made a case. I asked a question, that you declined to answer.

Before you speculate irrationally, <snip>

That's a red herring, sport. Does the question make you that uncomfortable?[/b]

I'm not a Catholic - I resent some of their ideas, so no, I'm not sensitive to your blithering statement.

By case, I meant point. You don't seem to have one. I do think that your post was quite futile and meant for the point and purpose to jab at the Catholics.

To answer your idiotic question - the pedophile. Go on, now, rip away - masterdebater...

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Outragous post from an apologist for paedophiles. They have made a lifestyle choice.. They can give up their line of work and get a different job at any time they choose.

Go, aardvark! Elegant...
Somehow, this attitude should be employed when looking at homosexuality as well - go gay, go out! The church and Bible is against such behaviour and the so-called wimps and weeds that tolerate it should find another group to join, like the UN.

Originally posted by RatX
Go, aardvark! Elegant...
Somehow, this attitude should be employed when looking at homosexuality as well - go gay, go out! The church and Bible is against such behaviour and the so-called wimps and weeds that tolerate it should find another group to join, like the UN.

The bible can be understood and interpreted in many different ways, not all of which lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. If you say "the church", do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? In that case you are right. But if you mean "all Christian churches", you are wrong.

Originally posted by RatX
I'm not a Catholic - I resent some of their ideas, so no, I'm not sensitive to your blithering statement.

By case, I meant point. You don't seem to have one. I do think that your post was quite futile and meant for the point and purpose to jab at the Catholics.

To answer your idiotic question - the pedophile. Go on, now, rip away - masterdebater...

you lie with your other name too.

Originally posted by Nordlys
The bible can be understood and interpreted in many different ways, not all of which lead to the conclusion that homosexuality is a sin. If you say "the church", do you mean the Roman Catholic Church? In that case you are right. But if you mean "all Christian churches", you are wrong.

Only homosexuals and their like translate it in that way... The reasons are still mystifying.

Originally posted by frogstomp
you lie with your other name too.

Forum confusion. Tiresome...

Originally posted by RatX
Forum confusion. Tiresome...

keep on posting ,,, you aint as ugly as your parent name.

Originally posted by frogstomp
keep on posting ,,, you aint as ugly as your parent name.

Are you hitting on me? 😀

Originally posted by RatX
Only homosexuals and their like translate it in that way...

Who is "their like"? There are many heterosexual Christians (including priests) who don't see homosexuality as a sin and who don't have anything against homosexual priests. Or do you think that those who allow homosexual people to become priests are all closet homosexuals themselves?

Originally posted by RatX
Go, aardvark! Elegant...
Somehow, this attitude should be employed when looking at homosexuality as well - go gay, go out! The church and Bible is against such behaviour and the so-called wimps and weeds that tolerate it should find another group to join, like the UN.

What an idiotic response. My post responded to another which suggested inappropriate behaviour may be a result of long term celibacy. If a priest cannot cope with long term celibacy I suggested they might choose to leave the priesthood rather than indulge in inappropriate sexual behaviour. I thought I was merely stating the obvious.