Does being a Catholic priest in Ireland, make you more likely to be a paedophile?

15Pete

Perhaps not the correct forum so Mods please move this thread if necessary, I PM'ed an AH mod asking about it but got no reply.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over whether being an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland made a man more likely to have become a convicted paedophile than if he, say for example, worked as a carpenter. It was my belief that if figures were available, statistics would show that there are many more convicted paedophiles (percentage-wise) who are priests than those from any other single profession.

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges.

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

gallag

This is guaranteed to go well.

Rented Mule

The question is redundant.

TheBody

S0crates wrote: »

Perhaps not the correct forum so Mods please move this thread if necessary, I PM'ed an AH mod asking about it but got no reply.

I was recently having a discussion with a friend over whether being an ordained member of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland made a man more likely to have become a convicted paedophile than if he, say for example, worked as a carpenter. It was my belief that if figures were available, statistics would show that there are many more convicted paedophiles (percentage-wise) who are priests than those from any other single profession.

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges.

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

Are you implying that being ordained in another country would make him less likely to be a paedo? Are Irish Kids more attractive?

con1421

Yes of course

sfbonner

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

HowAreWe

sfbonner wrote: »

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

what?

15Pete

TheBody wrote: »

Are you implying that being ordained in another country would make him less likely to be a paedo? Are Irish Kids more attractive?

Ha no not at all, the question was merely relevant in an Irish context. This is not a trolling thread by the way, I genuinely am interested in other people's opinions. I would love to arrive at a definitive conclusion based on evidence as I feel people's prejudices may affect their beliefs, including my own of course.

Riamfada

"My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges."

This has got to be the most ignorant, self important crap I have ever read. You are either trolling or an idiot.

Mr. CooL ICE

No. The fact that you have to even ask this shows how little you know about paedophilia

Lawrence1895

It's their choice to become a priest, isn't it?

So my answer would be 'No'

AnonoBoy

sfbonner wrote: »

Your right.

I think that the reason that there are many gay paedophile priests today is that when they were younger they were too ashamed to come out as gay because it would have looked very bad on the family so they preffered to become a priest and be with men most of the time.

You're equating gays with paedophiles. :rolleyes:

If the only thing the church had to worry about was gay priests then they wouldn't be facing the huge scandals that they have faced.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children than straight people are.

Lapin

I'm no fan of the Catholic Church (or any other religion), and I have nothing to do with priests.


But I still wish people would fúck off with threads like this. :mad:

sfbonner

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You're equating gays with paedophiles. :rolleyes:

If the only thing the church had to worry about was gay priests then they wouldn't be facing the huge scandals that they have faced.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children than straight people are.

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

15Pete

Riamfada wrote: »

"My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia. I believe this because the suppression of natural sexual urges for decades in a priest, is in my opinion unhealthy and makes the priest more likely to abuse children, as he cannot have open relations with adults and he believes he can swear a child to secrecy in order to fulfil his urges."

This has got to be the most ignorant, self important crap I have ever read. You are either trolling or an idiot.

Please explain in more detail why I am either trolling or an idiot, based on my opinions. I admit I have no expertise on this issue and am making inferences based on my prejudices. As a result of this, I seek impartial, conclusive evidence either to support or refute my beliefs.

TheChizler

Might make sense to actually read up on paedophilia and its definition before continuing op. Perhaps you mean general molestation?

And bear in mind that statistically when comparing to the average, you're either going to be above or below it. It's only relevant when it's significant. I think the key word in your statement is convicted, maybe some professions would be more likely to be found out than others, maybe they're under more scrutiny or something, so bear in mind conviction rates may have nothing to do with offence rates.

Grayson

I saw an article on the BBC site a while back. the number of paedophiles in the catholic church is the exact same percentage as the normal population. There is no more likelyhood of a priest being a paedophile than there is for any profession.

The reason it's linked to it is because the church covered up so much and bad priests could reoffend.

shopaholic01

sfbonner wrote: »

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

Altar servers were traditionally boys.

Mr Benevolent

My assumption is based on the fact that enforced celibacy makes a man more likely to turn to paedophilia.

Paedophilia is a very disturbing and destructive mental illness, not a lifestyle choice.

'As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13)'.

And there's no significant correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia.

AnonoBoy

sfbonner wrote: »

No im not. Just saying that in the news I see its mostly male children being abused by the b*stards.

That doesn't mean the priests are gay. Just that they are paedophiles that prey on boys.

In the same way that a male paedophile in the secular community could be married, never have indulged in gay activity and abuse young boys. That does not make them 'gay' it makes them 'paedophiles'.

HondaSami

S0crates wrote: »

Am I making an unfair generalisation by imagining this? Are there any statistics that can provide an answer? What do you think?

It's unfair on all the good Irish Catholic priests who are not paedophiles.

If there were stats it could be interesting reading.

Artful_Badger

LordChessington wrote: »

No. The fact that you have to even ask this shows how little you know about paedophilia

Replace paedophilia with "sexually abusing children" then which is what he's actually talking about. And he's 100% correct in what he's saying. Someone trying to suppress sexual urges are more likely to abuse children. Case and point is the widespread abuse of kids by "abstinent" catholic priests.

F.J.

It doesn't make you more likely to be a paedophile, just that you will be the butt of a lot of jokes!

DarkJager

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

15Pete

TheChizler wrote: »

Might make sense to actually read up on paedophilia and its definition before continuing op. Perhaps you mean general molestation?

And bear in mind that statistically when comparing to the average, you're either going to be above or below it. It's only relevant when it's significant. I think the key word in your statement is convicted, maybe some professions would be more likely to be found out than others, maybe they're under more scrutiny or something, so bear in mind conviction rates may have nothing to do with offence rates.

Indeed I could have worded the OP in a better way.
I chose to use the term "conviction" because I am not interested in unproven allegations which I believe would cause this thread to descend into an anecdotal farce if allowed to. Convictions are factual and allegations/speculation are not.

Grayson

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Replace paedophilia with "sexually abusing children" then which is what he's actually talking about. And he's 100% correct in what he's saying. Someone trying to suppress sexual urges are more likely to abuse children. Case and point is the widespread abuse of kids by "abstinent" catholic priests.

There aren't a greater percentage of priests who abuse though. The number of priests who abused children is the same percentage per population as any other profession.

The church covered it up though so it meant a dodgy priest could offend again and again and again.

HondaSami

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

That's a bit unfair, not all priests are bad or evil.

Madam_X

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

My uncle is a priest who sometimes minds his small great nieces/nephews. I must advise their parents to put a stop to it immediately, because the mere fact he's a priest indicates there's a strong chance he'll abuse them. The fact he minded me and my siblings/cousins when we were small, and he didn't abuse us, won't stand in the way of my hate-filled, nasty prejudice.

meoklmrk91

DarkJager wrote: »

I wouldn't trust any priest to be around children on their own, regardless of whether they are a "good priest" or not.

In fairness for the vast majority of people in the country the local priest is either a stranger or an acquaintance at the very most, I personally would not be leaving my child with anyone who falls into those categories regardless of their chosen profession. Be they priest, guard, doctor or whatever. It's just common sense really.

Agricola

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

Paedophilia is a very disturbing and destructive mental illness, not a lifestyle choice.

But what about a situation where legions of young men join an organisation that requires enforced celibacy, where they have no ability to have any physical intimacy with women (or men) In this scenario could a culture arise where some individuals prey on the only vulnerable group they have ready access to.... children.
And where this culture is covered up to limit damage to the organisation, could it flourish? The answer is yes. I don't think for a second that every priest who interfered with a child was a paedophile when they started out. I'd imagine in many cases a whole host of conditions led them down this path, and when it wasnt stopped or punished, it proliferated.

true

HondaSami wrote: »

That's a bit unfair, not all priests are bad or evil.

Only one in three catholic priests / religous brothers abused children. A bit unfair on the other 2.