Sexual repression

When ever there is a pedophiliac priest on the news people like to bitch about how 'sexual repression' is to blame.

Now personally I would poke the finger at the fucking child molester myself, the concept of Sexual repression and it's effect of human psyche seem worth discussing .

Well, sexual repression is a really funny tema.
On one hand we have molesters, and on the other hand we have kids who actually find "to have sex" to be a glorious idea if they are given it.
If anything, I do not see anything wrong with doing something about the sexual oppression, the question is rather how to do it :P

It's because priests are expected to be celibate, so in our quest to find answers we jump to what seems an obvious one; they really wanted to have sex but couldn't, and were so hard up they went for the easiest source, the kids under their authority.

Personally I don't think repression is the only cause, or that it's even a factor in all sexual offense cases; though the results usually look the same, the causes seem to be varied and often incompatible. Like how people can commit murder for a variety of reasons.

Its a rather idiotic excuse. They chose to be celibate out of their own free will, so they should be able to realise the implications.

Unless they believe Xianity is against free will and thinking; in that case I applaud them for ruining their religion and saving me work.

In my opinion, if they're touching children, then they're obviously not repressing their sexuality enough... and if it turns out trying to sexually repress doesn't work psychologically for them, then I suggest to them to try finding a better outlet than the one that's currently presented to them.

One opinion that I often heard from priests (and one which, I think I read somewhere, a few high-ranking Clery members agree with) is that one of the reasons for the whole problem is that, due to the priest shortage situation, many seminars accepted and allowed to the Holy Orders people who did not have a true vocation to chastity, and who in other circumstances would have been asked to reconsider their decision (and, perhaps, not allowed to become priests at all).

Some of these people - well-intentioned, but trying to follow a vocation which was not theirs to begin with - eventually snapped and went into full Sex Is Evil, and I Am Horny mode, with the known consequences.

edited 17th Apr '11 11:12:27 AM by Carciofus

I always figured that people with pedophiliac attractions went into the seminary for the same reason many gay Catholics do: they are afraid and ashamed of their sexuality, and find celibacy as a convenient reason to never have to confront it. I remember hearing an episode of This American Life featuring a man who had essentially been one of the Catholic church's "fixers," he would be sent in to a church to replace a problem priest. Priests do sleep with women, but the rest of the world really doesn't care when they do so we don't hear about it. I'm...open to the idea that sexual repression leads men to child molestation, but that is not how I currently think of fiddly priests.

On the one hand, I want to consider this offensive—I'm a Man; I Can't Help It is considered a sexist trope, after all. On the other hand, I'm gradually realizing that normal people have much, much higher libidos than I do.

Sexual repression is not the reason for some priests being child molesters and celibacy should not be seen as a negative thing. Celibacy and sexual repression should not even be in the same category.

Same here. Sure, I like having sex, but it's no big deal. I can go without it indefintiely: Not getting any hurts my ego more than it hurts my sex drive.

I would expect "not getting any" for priests to lead to sex with willing partners rather than children should they break their vows. Seeing how you can find one of those in about two minutes on Craigslist, I seriously doubt that's the cause of the child molestation.

edited 17th Apr '11 5:18:44 PM by Pykrete

I think Invisigoth has the right of it; it's not that sexual repression leads to pedophilia and molesting, but rather that people are seeking the priesthood for the wrong reasons. Distaste for one's own sexuality being one.

A sexually repressed man does not turn into a pedophile; if he cannot hold himself to his vows of chastity, he has poorly considered sexual encounters with adults of his preferred gender.

Is it the shortage of priests that's made the church so unwilling to investigate things or throw out priests who do things they shouldn't? That's made a small problem into a huge one, then.

I understood that celibacy in the church was introduced for purely financial reasons. Pay priests well, then when they die without wives or children you inherit what's left.

EDIT: misremembered something. Ignore what used to be in this paragraph.

It's also seen some recent discussion within the clergy over the last few years. Back in the 70's Benedict was one of several who called for a reexamination of the doctrine — at the time John Paul maintained the stance, but admitted that celibacy is not in the essence of priesthood.

The thing is it's one of those doctrines completely under the Pope's power to change at any time, but in addition to any opinions they might personally have, there's also immense pressure within the hierarchy to resist change. It's one of those things that involves cleaning up a long-stagnated and firmly-rooted mess, and I wish they'd hop to it a bit quicker.

edited 18th Apr '11 3:11:34 PM by Pykrete

@Michael: Also, it means that priests need only be paid enough for a single man with no spouse or offspring to support, only need to be given accommodation for one, won't be able to promote their own children in the priesthood (which was at one time common) and, yes, ensures nobody has a claim on the priest's property after death.

That's not neccessarily true. Priests often have siblings, and nephews.

Illegitimate children aren't unheard of either. Sometimes, those siblings, nephews and/or illegitimate children inherit the priest's property (since they typically live at leased homes, it pretty much amounts to some savings and personal posessions.

It's more about "pay wage and acommodations for one and prevent a priestly caste from forming" than "let's make sure the man's property goes back to the Church."

edited 18th Apr '11 4:21:48 PM by SavageHeathen