You call it molestation, they call it anatomy lessons.
Seriously — Desmond Gannon, a retired Roman Catholic priest, says that he wasn’t sexually assaulting an 11 year old boy, he was merely giving him a lesson in anatomy:
“I thought it was less formal rather than inviting him into the presbytery, and that’s all … I won’t say sexual abuse because at the time I didn’t know what it was.”
This is his 5th prosecution for sexual offenses.
I wonder if Catholicism will ever get rid of its ridiculous rule that priests must be celibate. I suppose there are some that actually achieve this, but it puts them in a situation where these sorts of things are more likely to occur.
I’m reminded of a priest friend of mine when I was an altar boy — he constantly flirted with my mom. He had far more interest in her than me, which in retrospect I’m very glad about.
There were these two monks in a very old monastery, talking about the ancient writings. One says to the other “Did you know that we have the original scrolls down in the cellar.” The other replies “Have you ever read them?”
“No – they’re too sacred and too vulnerable to be brought out of their hiding place.”
“So how did we get the holy books we now have?”
“One of the early monks, Brother Dyslexia, copied them – we then used his writings to make the holy books.”
“You know my passion for the ancient holy writings – could I perhaps have special permission to see the original scrolls?”
“I’ll see what I can do with the Pope, but it’s a long shot.”
After several weeks, the monk received permission to view the original scrolls. He headed down to the cellar, excited and full of wonder at what he would soon see.
Some time later, the other monk heard a loud banging, echoing through the monastery. He went to the cellar to investigate. As he entered the hiding place of the scrolls, he saw the other monk banging his head against the wall. Again and again.
“What is the matter, Brother?” he asked.
“Not celibate, celebrate.”
100% Liars, are theists.
Either by omission or commission.
(Those who can claim to not be liars are wither stonkingly ignorant, or insane).
This is a good one. I know I’m not a liar. I don’t think I’m insane; after all, I did study Psychology. I guess I’ll opt for stonkingly ignorant — stonkingly is such a great word, anyway!
You know what they say about people who study psychology…
No, what do they say? Speaking as a psychology student…
The lie you can tell most convincingly is the one you believe to be true.
It is not a “ridiculous rule”. Catholic celibacy has been a very intelligent idea that has helped the church prosperity immensely. Someone (my pick is Vorjack) should write a post here on the history of compulsory celibacy in the church.
I’d be interested in that, and it may have helped them, but I still think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s one of the reasons they have so much sexual abuse issues.
If they want to -or need to- break the celibacy vote, they always could choose masturbation, or an adult partner. It’s something more than simply sexual relief. This man is a pederast
Except their not allowed to do that either — it’s a sin. So as Luther said, if you’re going to sin, sin big, right?
I understand that could be their point of view, but still, one thing is wrong for you as a priest and you should “only” leave the church. Paedophilia is wrong and a sin as a human. Even they can see the difference.
Maybe all those priests had sexual problems before entering the church, and in fact they became priests to fight the “devil” inside them. Someone should have advised them to go to a psychologist instead.
Anyway, I don’t think their abstinence has anything to do with their “sexual preferences”
Of course you are right Daniel. For a sane person its clearly ridiculous (to put it nicely) but for a corporation that values wealth and power above all it is probably quite clever. It encourages sexual frustration? A few thousand kids get raped? Who cares as long as the power and money go on flowing and nobody disputes your preeminent role in society.
Any time healthy sexuality is repressed, it usually becomes perverted somehow. Christians load sex with so much guilt and ISSUES. Like this catholic guest on Bill Maher who said (paraphrase): “As a catholic, I was taught that sex was a filthy, vile, disgusting act, to be saved for the one I truly love!” It is a sad truth that religious regions tend to be prolific in breeding sexual predators, rapists, and pedophiles.
Pedophiles and pederasts tend to look for jobs and avocations that lend them close proximity to children. This is why so many priests, youth ministers, coaches, Scout leaders and teachers pop up as molesters. Fathers and favorite uncles are also common.
The additional problem with the priesthood is that the sexual drive is hard to put down, so if the good father is not inclined toward children, he is much more likely to seek out a willing wife or unmarried woman.
Being celibate doesn’t lead to molesting children, having been a molested child can, however. One of the reasons we need to get to molested kids and help them deal with the issues it creates.
Agreed. And think of all the kids that are at risk because the catholic church protected pedophiles for so many years. All the boys who were abused became potential abusers themselves, and the cycle continues and increases geometrically. (Not to say that all children who are abused become abusers – it’s still a personal choice to act badly).
The only reason why the church introduced celebatie is to keep the riches in the churche instead of spread to the children when the priest dies.
The thing I’ve never understood … if ‘every sperm is sacred’ to Catholics, and that’s the underpinning reason for no contraception, homosexuality, abortion or even masturbation … why isn’t celibacy on that list? If every abortion robs the world of a potential Newton or Galileo or Davinci or Darwin (or indeed, any of the other geniuses who the Catholic church actually denounced at the time) … surely priests not having kids does the same thing.
Moreso than average – priests are educated and live comfortable middle class lives, a great environment for raising children. So many great scientists and artists are the kids or were brought up by Protestant vicars or bishops.
Every time a priest *doesn’t* impregnate someone, he’s robbing the world of a life, and a life which would have many advantages, surely? On average, given that they’re Catholics, celibacy must mean that every priest denies the world three human lives. And I don’t have the figures to hand, but I bet most educated middle class women (to keep this comparison on a level playing field) who have abortions don’t have *three* abortions.
“surely priests not having kids does the same thing.”
The rules the Predators follow are not the same rules the Prey needs to follow.
“He Was Only Giving Anatomy Lessons”
Another argument for avoiding religion in schools
They have their own type of sex education, usually hands-on. Very progressive.
Daniel, I didnt know you were once an “alter boy”, no wonder you despise religion so much. That, like pretty much everything the Catholics “do” is a man-made, religious doctrine, ritual and thus…lifeless.
Religion…it’s a terrible bondage masquerading as a liberty, even as a God ordained protocol, how did we (mankind) ever become so deceived? How many minds/lives thru the ages have been taken captive by its life-draining demands and burdonsome practices?
Christ alone is Liberty.
Nah, it wasn’t so bad. I became a TrueChristianâ„¢ later and then I really learned to despise all the “religion” in Catholicism (but of course, like every person of faith, I had my own — except I would never have called it “religion” because that was bad since it was all about “relationship”)
As for how we became so “deceived” about religion, I don’t think you have to look much further than all the rules & regulations of your own holy book.
In the drawings-of-jesus blog, John C promised to stay away more. He’s baaaaaack!
Weren’t you going to hold back on the Witnessing? Or was that just another lie?
I think John C is on a mission to be the first person banned.
I believe many do have adult partners. Many are mutually and freely consenting but some are not in that the other person is someone who looked to them for confession or counseling (similar to a psychologist sleeping with a patient).
Remember the scandal of the Catholic church isn’t that some priests raped children (any organization of that size will have a few bad apples) but that they (1) covered it up and (2) allowed the known abusers continued access to potential victims. Note the Catholic church isn’t alone in this though it is taking longer to reform. I strongly suspect even if the priesthood were allowed to be married there would still have been sexual abuse (being married doesn’t guarantee a person won’t abuse).
No, being married does not guarantee against abuse, but if a man is not allowed to have normal, consensual sex with an adult (of either gender), he will have to get out his sexual needs somehow. And masturbation will get you into the clink for eternity for sure. So I guess the only thing left is alter boys. And it’s also true that pedophiles will be attracted to a job where they do not have to get married to maintain a socially acceptable public image, with plenty of access to children, in a position of trust where children will likely do as they are told. Since they are being “told” by god’s representative personally!
I’ll just say that if this guy tried to give me “anatomy lessons”, or my niece, nephew or child, I’d give him an anatomy lesson, alright. Starting with the eye (after a judicious application of my nails, of course). Then maybe about genitals and the consequences of trying to use them around my family. (Let us just say it involves knives. Sharp ones.)
I cannot wait until we find the undeniable scientific evidence that finally knocks this ivory tower down. It’s crumbling now, but not quite fast enough.
I wonder if Catholicism will ever get rid of its ridiculous rule that priests must be celibate. I suppose there are some that actually achieve this, but it puts them in a situation where these sorts of things are more likely to occur.
I agree with you. I think they need to ditch the celibacy requirement, for sure.
I can’t help but wonder, though, if celibacy and homosexual pedophilia are correlated. Obviously, we have plenty of case studies like the one here that confirm those suspicions, but it does seem to me that if a heterosexual male (which most priests are or claim to be) were ‘forced’ to abstain from sex, their desires would be for women, not little boys. That’s a long way of questioning whether or not celibacy fosters desire for homosexual pedophilia.
Either way, the RCC needs to get its head out of its ass and deal with both issues. Get pedophiles out of the priesthood, behind bars, and in therapy; and for goodness’ sake, drop the celibacy requirement.
but it does seem to me that if a heterosexual male (which most priests are or claim to be) were ‘forced’ to abstain from sex, their desires would be for women, not little boys.
I’m not sure if it’s that clear. I keep thinking of ancient Athens, where older men were assumed to be attracted to younger men. The usual explanation is that the Athenian custom of keeping woman completely out of sight created problems. Having no experience and almost no contact with women resulted in men being attracted to boys when they were at their most feminine (young, lightly muscled, unbearded). Even when they became married, Athenian men frequently still regarded women as something other than human and tried not to interact with them much (quick, what was the name of Socrates’ wife?).
Based on what little I’ve read about how priests are trained – mostly from Gary Wills and James Carroll – it seems like there is a strong tradition of keeping young priests far away from women. Women, according to Carroll, become ‘the other,’ and are regarded with suspicion. In such situations, it seems possible that normal heterosexual attractions might become a bit warped. Throw in the fact that young boys are encouraged to interact and look up to the priests, and you’ve got a recipe for real problems.
Also, could it be because young boys are easier prey and more available? How many young girls one is likely to find puttering about a catholic church?
Have donkeys gone extinct?
I keep thinking of a slight possibility that they were subjected to this as young boys and for whatever naivete they had, they perceived it or coped by defining it as good attention, and still is how they defend the behavior. I think it was on Oprah (stellar source, sure) that sometimes sexual predation is confusing for the victims because for whatever reason, it’s partially enjoyable to some, either because sex feels good or they feel chosen by someone they admire – taken for advanced or mature by someone instead of “repressed” by their childhood image is kinda heady.
I’m not saying it’s right, but that some people claim that they didn’t feel 100% awful or abused by it, why they don’t run away, name names, physically react. Some too scared or embarrassed, some not believed, another valid explanation. I’ve never been sexually abused so I apologize if my analysis is totally for shit. I just think most abusers were abused themselves and being made so stupid by the church has made them fail to recognize what is bad because they’re convinced of their righteousness. I think in the case of most abusers on the secular side experience their instances as guilty and dirty (admit I am guessing the mind of) as well as compulsory, whereas I think Catholics would want to be the first in line to rid themselves of it. It’s confusing why they don’t seem to equate the abuse with sin even moreso rather than justify it. If we say here, have at some donkeys instead, they probably wouldn’t go for it, so I don’t know how they can be so sick toward little boys and pretend that’s not what it is; I think some of them really still don’t comprehend it.
Xanthippe!
I only know that because I was a philosophy major.
I also used to be a Catholic. Looking back, I can’t *believe* the shit they made me think was true. Why did I keep shoving that little voice down that constantly whispered “This is silly. This is ridiculous. This is a waste of time.”?
Good analysis. Prison is another place where non-consensual sex between men is common because there is no access to women.
“I can’t help but wonder, though, if celibacy and homosexual pedophilia are correlated.”
Of course they are correlated. It’s about power over someone who is weaker and cannot defend against your advances. How would a priest approach a woman for sex? Damn near impossible I would say. They go after the easiest prey that’s available to them.
Pedophilia has little to do with homosexuality. As a rule, most pedophiles are heterosexual, preferring their adult partners to be of the opposite sex. Their taste in children is usually connected to whatever the damage done to them childhood was.
Most pedophiles also prefer little girls to little boys. The consistent stories about catholic priests and boys may have to do more with access than preference.
“I don’t suppose it would help if I told them I’m not homosexual?”
“Neither are they. You’d have to be human first. They don’t qualify.”
“I thought it was less formal rather than inviting him into the presbytery, and that’s all … I won’t say sexual abuse because at the time I didn’t know what it was.â€
Are you KIDDING me?!
Not sure he really expects anyone to believe that…or maybe because a priest probably diddled him when he was a child, he thought it was a “normal anatomy lesson”???
I enjoy this website and knowing that there are others out there who have similar thoughts and feelings as I do. However, one of Daniel’s statements tripped over one of my pet peeves and I feel a need to comment on it.
Daniel says:
“I wonder if Catholicism will ever get rid of its ridiculous rule that priests must be celibate.”
In the context of the article, this is a cause and effect statement – that priests molest children (especially boys) because they must observe celibacy. That somehow not having sex will cause a priest to turn to criminal perversion. This isn’t the only place I’ve seen this apparent thought process.
I don’t hear a lot of stories about nuns who sexually abuse children (male or female). Yet they are also celibate.
I would be willing to bet that there a large number of priests who do NOT molest children, despite their celibacy.
There are lots of people outside of religious orders who are celibate for any number of reasons who also do not molest children. There are plenty of people who abstain (long term) from sex by choice or by circumstance. Most of them do not suddenly snap and start sexually abusing children. I did not have sex until I was 31, because I had high standards and it took that long to find a person who met my standards and who was also interested in me. I certainly felt desire and frustration at not finding a partner before then, but never once did my thoughts turn to abusing children as an outlet for that frustration.
The sexual abuse of children is, like most other expressions of rape and sexual battery, about asserting power, control and authority. We’ve seen plenty of preachers in other religions who are allowed to marry, who abuse their adult and minor followers. Look at the fundamentalist polygamous groups under Jeff Warren’s control. The spiritual leaders in that community appear to have committed systematic child rape openly for decades, and celibacy is clearly not a tenet of their theology.
I would suggest that it is not celibacy that “turns” priests into predators of children. I would suggest that some elements of organized religion (mysticism, ritual, rigid hierarchies, etc.) appeal to individuals who have pathological needs for authority and control over others. I think organized religion may well attract an abnormal proportion of such people … either because they hope that a god can help them control their pathologies, or because everything about the religious structure appeals to their pathologies.
I believe that celibacy of priests in the Catholic church was a policy instituted in the Middle Ages to help cement the power and authority of the church – both for inheritance reasons and for misogynistic ones. I think that if the Catholic church really wants to grow and survive, that policy will have to go, because I think it’s one of the contributing reasons they can’t get young people to join the priesthood. I think they also need to openly embrace the concept of ordaining women as priests rather than treating them as second class citizens, and accepting homosexuality in the priesthood, the laity, and the congregation. However, none of those changes would reduce the systematic predation on children. That will only change when either the church screens its priests better for dangerous personality traits, or when it changes the religious dogma and ritual that calls to the pathologies of dangerous predators.
I’m not saying it is absolute cause and effect. But I think the pressure to be celibate priest greatly increases the chances of child molestation. Why? Because they have no legitimate outlet for their sexuality. Masturbation is a sin. Women know that priests must be celibate and are unlikely to be responsive to advances — and if they told anyone of the advances, the priest would be fired.
But there are altar boys. Boys (and sometimes girls) who are suggestible, respect the priest, won’t talk, and don’t know very much about the ways of the world.
When you combine that with sexual frustration, I think you have a higher chance of molestation than a priest who had a happy marriage, children, and healthy outlets for sexual urges.
I could be wrong here — I don’t have the data and am too lazy to find it and aggregate it — so it’s just my opinion.
The celibacy requirement also acts as a selection criteria, driving most people with normal sexual desires away from choosing the priesthood.
Generally, I agree. But the priesthood also attracts people with guilty consciences, and want to make things right with God by being a priest. If they were all sexless religious freaks, then we wouldn’t be having the problems we are having.
I once knew a guy on the internet who I think was LDS and he was also gay. He went through some awesome periods of self-loathing, not that anyone didn’t get tired of hearing about it eventually, but the torture he endured of his own making was incredible to see. He wanted so much to stop being gay, he loved the church and believed he was a crazy misfit sinner, at times maybe even suicidal but that’s a sin too. I can imagine someone like that desperately turning to the church and becoming a priest. I don’t think it’s totally impossible just because someone is gay on the inside that they can’t also be celibate if they choose that path (convince themselves it goes away if they don’t act upon it), but if you’re messed in the head about it…. I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse this individual of molesting boys if he had the opportunity, but you get someone who is so constrained by the church’s beliefs that they can’t be gay or kill themselves if they want to, or seek therapy of the productive kind to accept themselves and not want to kill themselves, I think this has got to be a typical profile. I don’t say they present themselves to their church for all those flaws and still get the job, but one would hope they could be savvy enough to eliminate this element.
Of course, not getting accepted into priesthood, when it was the last thing you thought that could save you is probably a downer. I don’t think many people go to the career fair with few ideas and come out deciding to become priests because of easy access to man-boy love. I think they are either natural for spiritual leadership or totally conflicted in a self-destructive way and think the church is a way to get out of it, get away from themselves.
*You gotta admit, I’ve cut way, way back…:) One or two comments a day, none yesterday (so pls dont reply to me how I promised to cut back, etc cuz I have and I will keep my word going fwd, thx).
Kodie you said “I once knew a guy on the internet who I think was LDS and he was also gay”. Geez…stop and think for a minute. Those are two labels he assumed upon himself, here’s my question- who told him that? That he was both LDS and GAY? Did Father give him these titles? This is our problem, we heap upon ourselves these various (false) identities/titles/labels and then wonder why our lives go so wrong, get so fouled up. This is a tremendous misalignment of personal identity and its very, very destructive because a man (or woman) will always behave like the person (identity) he “thinks” he or she is. Does anyone know the real title we have been given? Does anyone care to know how beautiful, how loving, powerful and liberating it is?
This is also the same thing that occured in the garden deception, the lies that man believed that carried him away, confused him causing him to even forget his true parentage, origins. God saying (after man had been decieved)…who told you??? (who you gonna believe, who has true words). Identity is the key issue, once a man knows who he truthfully is, the false identities fall away and he “see’s” aright, manifests that true behavior/expression. Truth, who longs for truth, for the liberating life that truth brings?? Anyone? All the best.
How about commenting on the article?
You are preaching your thang about what you believe to me to tell me about some warped up shitwise guy I knew on the internet (and not even personally) over 10 years ago. I have no freakin’ clue where he got the stupid idea to believe in god so hard he couldn’t freely express his true nature as a homosexual. I think that was my point, which you missed, so you could witness instead.
But of course, you can cut down on the amount you post, but we cannot count on you to have anything relevant to add to the discussion.
Yet more Witnessing. Are you claiming the fellow wasn’t a mormon? Are you claiming he wasn’t gay? Get a grip. Seriously, you can’t actually expect to convince anyone with that shit. You are just trying to earn brownie points with your invisible father figure.
How is masturbating a sin but molesting children not a sin? That’s the confusing part. I mean if we consider homosexuality to be one of their sins, how is molesting a boy not homosexuality at the very least on par with masturbating? That doesn’t make any sense that they would choose to invade the private parts of another human being, how does god approve of that over diddling yourself? How does the Catholic church fail to recognize a sin for a sin? If he’s going to get fired because he has relations with a woman, the reasoning would definitely be then, at least she was consensual, but he was still in the wrong. I don’t think molesting boys can be a valid alternative to masturbating sorry. You take a celibate dude, (1)performing sexual acts and/or having them performed on self, (2)homosexually, and (3)on young children who are powerless and impressionable.
If you touch your own schlong in private, I guarantee it’s not going to tell anybody and it’s not hurting anybody. Rolling up having someone else masturbate you or having sex with them when you’re supposed to be celibate, homosexually, and raping them basically because you think they won’t tell anybody makes 3 times less sense, if not more, than whacking off in the shower. Lying and/or covering up and/or pretending there’s nothing wrong with any of it, institutionally, I’m no mathematician, but that’s complete exponential insanity.
I have to agree with Kodie here. An otherwise healthy male heterosexual would not, as a rule, decide that sex with young boys is the answer to being celibate. And if one is going to commit a sin, then masturbation is certainly the less destructive sin. As to your comment about “Women know that priests must be celibate…”, …really? There are many women who know that a married man has a legal and civil bond with his wife, and yet they are happy to engage in an affair. There is certainly enough evidence of priestly affairs to see that there are women willing to put aside the celibate thing as a non-issue. Do not underestimate the allure of a lonely priest wanting personal comfort to a wife or single woman in the church, or someone outside the church who isn’t as bothered by church rules.
Where there is a will, there is a way, and gods know that man surely has the will where sex is concerned.
Yeah, to think about it, I could hypothetically get the hots for some priest. Maybe someone in his church would be a little more “prudent” I guess. His celibacy is his hang-up, like god is, and no concern of mine if we can meet each other’s needs. Of course if it was someone in the church, they could scheme secretly together (like the confessions in that church camp thread) and no one would get hurt until the affair went sour. I don’t know how that would turn out for the woman either, if she’d be thrown out of church or even ex-communicated for luring a priest away from his committed celibacy. I’m almost sure they would say it was her fault and the priest would keep his job, unless like the politicians, it was a gay affair. When you don’t have a woman to blame, I guess you have nothing left to do but admit you’re attracted to dudes.
There are a few things people miss because they don’t want to look too closely. One is the history of celibacy in the church. This is not something that has ever gone smoothly for Rome. From the lowly priest to the upper reaches of the Bishops and Cardinals, affairs that have lasted lifetimes are part of the record.
And then there is the construction of the confessional. This came about in church history because the priests were taking advantage of having privet moments with daughters and wives during confession. It had long been an issue, and was addressed by one of the popes by building the little double closet. Better to keep the temptation down. It took a long time before the confessional closet came to be used universally. Lots of resistance.
Around 1500 AC, catholic pope Alexander VI had at least 9 known children with 3 different women. He didn’t left church direction…
“is a sin. Women know that priests must be celibate and are unlikely to be responsive to advances — and if they told anyone of the advances, the priest would be fired”
Daniel, do you really think that they can be fired for having an affair, but they are not expelled for pedophilia?
Another factor, I think, is that priests aren’t *meant* to be thinking about sex, so there’s the Thorn Birds Factor – children and other vulnerable people assume that the relationship *can’t* be sexual, that what they’re doing can only be wholesome. The more crafty priests would be able to manipulate and encourage that. The less crafty probably rationalize it away to themselves as ‘not counting’.
The scandal, for my money, isn’t that a fraction of the people working with children abuse children – that, sadly, is inevitable. The scandal is that the church protect the abusers. *That* seems to be institutional, it seems perfectly fair to tar all Catholic priests with that brush.
I think the more important question to be answered is…31???!!! Your bedroom walls must have been spackled from floor to ceiling!
I don’t have any data either, just looking at the logical progression of the ideas, so I guess we are having at best a rhetorical discussion on the topic. But I have to wonder … with both masturbation and sex with a child being sins, why would an otherwise normal, albeit sexually frustrated person who couldn’t take the pressure of celibacy choose the sin of raping a child over the sin of masturbation? I realize that people in these situations don’t always think rationally, but I still have a problem with the concept that celibacy is a significant causative agent of child molestation. I think you have to have significant existing pathologies, at which point, celibacy is only a final trigger; and if that is the case, then even taking away celibacy isn’t a solution, because there will just be another trigger that comes along.
And I still have to wonder, if celibacy leads to molestation, why don’t we see more uncloistered nuns and a substantially higher rate of priests being accused? Especially now, as society is starting to stand up for children and acknowledge that accusations be taken seriously, be investigated, etc., and being more supportive of victims?
Thanks for the opportunity to have an interesting debate, and for your indulgence. You and I are in total agreement on the main point of your article … the man is a horror and the church needs to find ways to prevent people like him from ever having access to children the church is supposed to nurture and protect.
I tend to agree with Daniel’s analysis. It makes common sense, and it seems to be a pattern that when people are sexually repressed, perversion is often the result. This may help to explain why there seems to be more of this type of crime in highly religious regions. I can give you some stats and articles on that if you want.
Also, I wonder if abusing a child is a greater sin in the catholic faith? This might seem like a wierd question, but there are lots of masses / sermons on the evils of masturbation, but I doubt there have been the same attention paid to child sexual abuse. It seems like masturbation is considered a very grave sin, and people will go to great lengths to avoid it. Plus, if you masturbate with guilt, probably takes most of the fun out of it anyway.
What we have here are a bunch of non-experts (myself included) talking about a condition that has different definitions depending on who you ask (Psychologists, police/courts, or the vernacular) and no defined cause from the medical community. That said, I know we all agree that this guy is in serious denial.