If Priests can marry will the abuse end

[Rooster]

Tears flow as judge OKs record clergy abuse payout - CNN.com Vivian Viscarra, 50, who attends Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, said the victims deserve the payout even though it could hurt the church's ability to deliver important services. "It's making me reevaluate my views of whether people in the ministry should be married. People do have needs," she said.

Now they are thinking, if priests marry then the abuse will stop.
Marriage will not stop a pedophile from abusing children. The loving act between a husband and wife cannot be compared to the act these priests forced upon their victims.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Rooster Now they are thinking, if priests marry then the abuse will stop. Marriage will not stop a pedophile from abusing children. The loving act between a husband and wife cannot be compared to the act these priests forced upon their victims.

It could be argued that the oppressive environment is creating inappropriate outlets in the same manner that heterosexual inmates may exhibit homosexual tendencies in lieu of other options.

I don't know the stats but if the percentage of pedophiles in the clergy is notably higher than the percentage of pedophiles in the general population then one could surmise that the position in clergy either attracts pre-existing pedophiles or, per the example above, converts some non-pedophiles into pedophiles. Either of those cases could be adequately argued I think.

Allowing priests to marry would, at the absolute worst, keep the pedophelia instances roughly the same if every single pedophile was, in fact, pre-existing and drawn to the clergy for whatever reason. If, however, some of the clergy were not pre-existing pedophiles and explored the tendency due to the environment then allowing priests to marry should, theoretically, decrease the chance that they would focus on inappropriate outlets since they would suddenly have appropriate outlets.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Rooster Now they are thinking, if priests marry then the abuse will stop. Marriage will not stop a pedophile from abusing children. The loving act between a husband and wife cannot be compared to the act these priests forced upon their victims.

Being a peodphile does not make you a child molester. And just because a relationship is Adult-Child doesn't make it unloving.

Quote by: Muckraker It could be argued that the oppressive environment is creating inappropriate outlets in the same manner that heterosexual inmates may exhibit homosexual tendencies in lieu of other options.

Indeed. Most cases of molest isn't commited by pedophile, but by Reggressed offenders.

Quote by: Muckraker I don't know the stats but if the percentage of pedophiles in the clergy is notably higher than the percentage of pedophiles in the general population then one could surmise that the position in clergy either attracts pre-existing pedophiles or, per the example above, converts some non-pedophiles into pedophiles. Either of those cases could be adequately argued I think.

You can't be converted into a pedophile. A desire like this, is something you have your entire life, not something you develop. And pedophilia is not an act, it's an attraction.

Quote by: Muckraker Allowing priests to marry would, at the absolute worst, keep the pedophelia instances roughly the same if every single pedophile was, in fact, pre-existing and drawn to the clergy for whatever reason. If, however, some of the clergy were not pre-existing pedophiles and explored the tendency due to the environment then allowing priests to marry should, theoretically, decrease the chance that they would focus on inappropriate outlets since they would suddenly have appropriate outlets.

What makes a Child-Adult relationship inappropriate if it's caring?

[another day]

of fuck, not another pedophile.

look its wrong because a child is not a fully developed person and cannot be responsible for making the same choices as an adult... duh. Adults can manipulate children fairly easily.

now get lost you nambla freak.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: another day look its wrong because a child is not a fully developed person and cannot be responsible for making the same choices as an adult... duh. Adults can manipulate children fairly easily.

Adults can manipulate other adults to. But if you claim a consentual realtionship is impossible, where's the proof of it?

Quote by: another day now get lost you nambla freak.

Personal insult. :rolleyes:

[Frasier]

Being a peodphile does not make you a child molester.

Despite the fact I disagree with your other positions entirely - I do not think it is right for an adult to have a relationship with a child - I have to agree with this, for reasons of pedantry more than anything else.

The word paedophile is used, for an unknown reason, to describe those who specifically sexually abuse children in one form or another - either indirectly (through pornography) or directly (through molestation or intercourse) - but the actual definition of the word is merely "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". In which case, someone can be a paedophile - and yet not mistreat directly or indirectly children at all. But the way the word is used today it suggests that if someone is a paedophile they have to have mistreated a child.

[Rooster]

I cannot even believe you are debating the defination of a pedophile or the relationship between a child and an adult. Its more than obvious that the children, regardless of age, were taken advantage of and that the priests used their position of authority to their advantage.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Rooster I cannot even believe you are debating the defination of a pedophile or the relationship between a child and an adult. Its more than obvious that the children, regardless of age, were taken advantage of and that the priests used their position of authority to their advantage.

So it's one of those things we don't debate, don't prove, and just state? I don't question that the priests misused their power, but i still say there doesn't exist a shred of proof as to Child-Adult relationships being harmful. It's just the General Conception.

[Rooster]

The adult has consent to any relationship they enter...children do not. Children simply do not have the experience or knowledge needed to enter into an adult relationship.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Rooster The adult has consent to any relationship they enter...children do not. Children simply do not have the experience or knowledge needed to enter into an adult relationship.

That seems to be common knowladge..

But it can't be proven. What sort of rules do we base on nothing at all, and still follow? Stupid rules..

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Maybe-not That seems to be common knowladge.. But it can't be proven.

Oh yes it can. It's a legal concept. If you don't meet the criteria of age you are not able to consent to such a contract, let alone an act of this nature.

[Jack]

This is not a thread about the merits of pedophilia. Stay on topic.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[tinybear]

Historically, Catholic priests were allowed to marry. The reason why they subsequently weren't allowed to was because their children usually succeeded to their posts. Celibacy was then introduced to end this phenomenon.

I think it's time this rule was abolished. There's no longer any reason for its existence. Priesthood isn't as attractive as it once was.

[Frasier]

I cannot even believe you are debating the defination of a pedophile

To defend myself before I move back on topic, I'm not saying paedophilia is a good thing - I'm saying that the definition of it is misused. I do, repeat, do not think paedophilia is at all acceptable or justifiable.

I do think it is certainly possible that if priests could marry then abuse like this would end - it stands to reason that celibacy could cause urges that manifest themselves in the mistreatment of children - but that's not to say all paedophilia in the priesthood would end if they could marry.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Frasier To defend myself before I move back on topic, I'm not saying paedophilia is a good thing - I'm saying that the definition of it is misused. I do, repeat, do not think paedophilia is at all acceptable or justifiable.

If it's not something you chose, how can it be unacceptable?

Quote by: Frasier I do think it is certainly possible that if priests could marry then abuse like this would end - it stands to reason that celibacy could cause urges that manifest themselves in the mistreatment of children - but that's not to say all paedophilia in the priesthood would end if they could marry.

Again, now your yourself misuse the Term pedophile, and pedophilia. Ending celibacy wouldn't stop anyone from being a pedophile.

But it most likely would stop those fustrated horny priests from letting it out on the boys.

[Frasier]

Again, now your yourself misuse the Term pedophile, and pedophilia. Ending celibacy wouldn't stop anyone from being a pedophile.

No, I do not:

View Post I do think it is certainly possible that if priests could marry then abuse like this would end - it stands to reason that celibacy could cause urges that manifest themselves in the mistreatment of children - but that's not to say all paedophilia in the priesthood would end if they could marry.

In which case I think it could reduce problems of abuse - but it would not all paedophilia, ie being sexually attracted to children, will end if they could marry. I fail to see how that is a misuse of the term.

If it's not something you chose, how can it be unacceptable?

I meant to say acting upon paedophilic thoughts and desires. My apologies.

[Rooster]

Whether or not priests can marry has nothing to do with abusing or entering into inappropriate relationships with young boys. Having a healthy, normal or sexual outlet will not stop the urges

Ted Bundy was a serial rapist and he was married.

[Frasier]

Whether or not priests can marry has nothing to do with abusing or entering into inappropriate relationships with young boys. Having a healthy, normal or sexual outlet will not stop the urges

There is no evidence for that. If you knew anything about the complexity of sexual urges you'd realise that actually they can be caused because one is celibate and that because of that the id becomes dominant over the superego - in which case one is more likely to develop urges that the superego would normally surpress.

Ted Bundy was a serial rapist and he was married.

Of course, no one is saying that marriage will stop all these incidents, merely that it might reduce them.

[Rooster]

Frasier: There is no evidence for that.

There is no evidence that supports your theory either.

Frasier: If you knew anything about the complexity of sexual urges you'd realise that actually they can be caused because one is celibate and that because of that the id becomes dominant over the superego - in which case one is more likely to develop urges that the superego would normally surpress

.

Interesting that you claim I dont understand sexual urges, but yet you quote Sigmund Freud....a man who thought sexual activity blocked the creative process. Stopped having sex with his wife, since it was his destiny to be great; but may have carried on an affair with his sister in law.

Yea, you have it figured out.

[Frasier]

Interesting that you claim I dont understand sexual urges, but yet you quote Sigmund Freud....a man who thought sexual activity blocked the creative process. Stopped having sex with his wife, since it was his destiny to be great; but may have carried on an affair with his sister in law. Yea, you have it figured out.

Are you suggesting that Freud's theories are incorrect because of this conjecture?

There is no evidence that supports your theory either.

There are many psychologists who would disagree with that assumption.