<p>I’m not going to continue this argument if playing argumentative games are your only play. It doesn’t take a statistician to realize that celibacy plays some role, no matter how large or small, in the Catholic church scandals. ~ Pandem</p>
<hr>
<p>The rate of priests who have molested children is pretty comparable to other faith leaders or leaders of organizations, as another poster said - the anger was more with the “cover up.”</p>
<p>I hate to link in molestation with homosexuality, but a major reason with priests (a slim majority of them) are later found to be gay is because decades ago, before it was cool to be gay, parents would often send their sons to the seminary to become priests if they found out they were gay. They thought it would “cure” them.</p>
<p>The Catholic Church does promote celibacy, but that doesn’t mean people actually follow it. I mean, I went to Catholic schools K-12, and we sure as hell didn’t practice it - so you need to draw a line between doctrine and reality. I think it’s better people wait to have sex till they’re married - I mean, look at all the teenage mothers, you think they are refusing to use condoms because of what the church says? Psshhhh, not on your life bro.</p>
<p>^Those links don’t really even mean anything – my original point was that condoms are pretty reliable. To suggest celibacy is somehow more effective than contraceptive promotion is unrealistic and dangerous. If everyone would take a more pragmatic view, we’d all be better off.</p>
<p>You are possible the worst supporter of arguments ever.</p>
<p>Clearly, you don’t understand Catholicism or its followers at all.</p>
<p>So, here we go…</p>
<p>1) Priestly celibacy linked to pedophilia – You have used “common sense” as an argument in the face of a total lack of statistical support. I challenge this notion completely, and given that it can be quantified, your argument is totally invalid unless you actually provide data. Failing that, I will do so, thereby completely disproving your point by showing that priestly abuse cases are not larger as a percentage than other statistical groups, i.e. you are completely wrong.</p>
<p>2) The articles to which you linked also include no empirical evidence whatsoever. I could link to an article by the Pope saying that celibacy has no relation to sex abuse; that wouldn’t make it true or false.</p>
<p>3) If you knew ANYTHING about Catholicism and the Catholic Church, you would know that the Austrian Church is INCREDIBLY liberal, bordering on heresy, and that Hans Kung has actually crossed that border consistently throughout his life in the sense that both groups are incredibly progressive and want to dismantle the Church (one has only to read their publications to see this explicitly…no exaggeration). Using them as sources here is like using Dawkins’ opinion – no weight if one is trying to suggest that even internally, the Church is split on the celibacy issue.</p>
<p>Also, the Archbishop article mentions it as a “possible” cause. That doesn’t mean he is sure that it is. We are already aware that it is a <em>possible</em> cause. Your argument is that it categorically, <em>is</em>. In fact: “A spokesman clarified the archbishop’s words, insisting he was “in no way” seeking to question the celibacy rule or call for its abolition.” If he was REALLY convinced, would he be so diplomatic about it? All he is doing is asking for it to be examined, to be <em>studied</em>, producing the kind of data we here opposing you (pandem) are asking for.</p>
<p>“^Those links don’t really even mean anything – my original point was that condoms are pretty reliable. To suggest celibacy is somehow more effective than contraceptive promotion is unrealistic and dangerous.”</p>
<p>Is it so completely ridiculous to think that people have some level of self-control? </p>
<p>As a caveat, I should say that I agree that one should have a choice between celibacy/contraception. I don’t <em>personally</em> believe in involuntary celibacy. I’m not a member of the Catholic church though, so I won’t try to force that opinion on an institution that I have little intimate knowledge of/relations with. For a while there it seemed however, that you were suggesting that celibacy is a completely wrong idea for <em>everyone</em>, or “You can practice celibacy, just don’t promote it as a good thing, and don’t feel good about being celibate because it is unnatural.” Why should a celibate person not promote celibacy? It might even be hypocritical to do otherwise. I am sorry if I had misinterpreted your position, but that’s the overall impression I got.</p>
<p>Why did this thread devolve into a stupid religious debate?</p>
<p>Look its obvious that celibacy does not lead to the child molestation in the catholic church.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many of those priests aren’t celibate all of the time anyway (with women, I mean).</p></li>
<li><p>Why would celibacy lead to rape/ molestation, and skip over consensual sex? Sounds like the latter is a lot smaller risk. In fact, many priests agree. See #1.</p></li>
<li><p>Most people can go a long period of time without sex without feeling the urge to rape/ molest someone. If you were ever a virgin or had a dry spell, then you know.</p></li>
<li><p>As some other poster mentioned - maybe the easy access to children is why the molestation occurs. It would be a lot harder for an office executive with a problem to be around children — parents and children are guarded among strange men, but not a trusted community member like a priest.</p></li>
<li><p>Self-selection ---- maybe more crazies join the Catholic priesthood, where you can’t have sex or get married. Celibacy has nothing to do with it.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Well I for one thoroughly enjoyed reading Sithis wreck pandem. I am probably ideologically distant from Sithis but I can admire a good internet fight, the replies had a dry wit that came across very nicely. Kudos.</p>
<p>Yes, there isn’t any hard proof to show that priests molest children because of celibacy. You win, congratulations. </p>
<p>I don’t know why I bothered to defend that point in the first place, considering that it wasn’t my main issue. I don’t care if the priests’ molestation had anything to do with their celibacy. I said it probably played a role, even if it was extremely minor. If some priests suggested that it may be an issue, it probably was an issue, no matter how minor. Repeat: not having sex and raping children both concern sexual urges.</p>
<p>Well, I agree with your perspectives in those areas. My main concern was your assault on religious people who value celibacy; an assault which was not supported by facts, just assumptions. Your argumentative style seems to rely on browbeating and faulty appeals to ethics and emotion moreso than a careful, reasoned approach, which is mainly what initially irritated me.</p>
<p>As for religious celibacy in general:
The sexually deviant behavior in the church has not been proven to be significantly different from that of secular society, however emotionally painful it may be for those effected. So I don’t see how you can reasonably argue that celibacy is some huge issue. Try also to refrain from the stereotype that every religious person is a “nut.” You lack finesse… that’s probably the main cause behind my choice to rebut your arguments.</p>
<p>In summary: I think a number of your views are valid; I think you need to reconsider how you go about spreading them because currently your approach is just as dogmatic as any religion.</p>
<p>Well if we are going to persist in this… I will play Devil’s Advocate.</p>
<p>“Condoms, like all contraceptives, are not 100% foolproof. Most condom failure is due to human factors such as the failure to use condoms consistently or incorrect use of the prophylactic.1 Many of these problems can be corrected through safe sex education, which opponents of condoms also oppose.”</p>
<p>Seems like an awful lot of factors. The Pope’s point of view is probably:<br>
If you are TRULY practicing celibacy, you absolutely, 100% cannot get STDs.
Promoting condoms is inherently relying on the fact that risk factors in the use of such contraceptives will be overcome</p>
<p>" Poorly manufactured condoms, which are sometimes found in the developing world, or those stored at excessive heats for long periods of time, can also fail."</p>
<p>This obviously doesn’t have any effect in Africa at all.</p>
<p>Your view is that
People generally cannot overcome their sexual urges in order to practice celibacy
Thus, people will break celibacy/abstinence and have unprotected sex, spreading STDs</p>
<p>So, there is risk in either preventative measure. It’s simply a matter of which has <em>more</em> risk. Which is difficult to determine (beyond using your beloved assumptions and Common Sense).</p>
<p>Also, I am sure that not <em>everyone</em> in the Church is truly anti-contraception, despite the opinions of the Pope and a few other leaders. At worst, people in Africa are receiving two conflicting messages. Thus, they have a choice; they will see which works better for them with the passage of time. Think of it from the perspective of a relatively uneducated African… it’s all dogma to them… “Do this because the Church says it works,” “Do that because Scientists say it works.”</p>
<p>As an aside, I lived in South Africa for 10 years when I was younger, and I attended a private Catholic school, where I distinctly remember being shown a video at said school about AIDs and how it might be prevented by either abstinence <em>or</em> contraception. I remember being told that “abstinence is the only sure way to not get an STD” (you can’t dispute this," but I was never told that contraceptives don’t work at all. It was more like “Practice abstinence, but if you must…” This is the same way sex ed. is taught in U.S. schools, to my knowledge. So let’s not get completely incensed because of the Pope’s views.</p>
<p>Oh, wait, I decided to do some additional research.</p>
<p>“The most reliable ways to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), are to abstain from sexual activity or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner.”</p>
<p>Apparently the CDC agrees more with the Pope than it agrees with you (although one could definitely say that the Pope has taken his views to the extreme).</p>
<p>Those aren’t my points. I quoted the articles. </p>
<p>You’re completely missing the point. Obviously abstinence is the only 100% way to prevent STDs. And locking yourself inside a box is the only surefire way to prevent an automobile accident. We live in reality.</p>
<p>In case you didn’t notice, abstinence doesn’t work. It’s pretty hard to convince people something that comes naturally. Hence why contraceptives should be encouraged. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What don’t you understand? Abstinence doesn’t work and isn’t practical. Repeat: those who took the virginity pledge were MORE LIKELY to have UNSAFE sex.</p>
<p>The article references numerous studies, so don’t pull another “oh it’s a particular viewpoint.” </p>
<p>And nevermind the fact that sex is a natural, healthy phenomenon. Why would we ever want our kids to be healthy in healthy ways (using contraceptives)?</p>