Reader comments · Gay priests ‘no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals’ · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Gay priests ‘no more likely to abuse children than heterosexuals’

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. How do they even know which priests are gay? Are those the ones that can’t marry in the States?? Oh wait,,,straight priests can’t marry can they?? Hmmm,,,how un-natural. I wonder if priests can identify with the oppressive regime in the States that says gays can’t marry either,,,, fkn stone-throwers.

  2. Simon Murphy 18 Nov 2009, 4:55pm

    Of course gay priests are no more likely to sexually abuse children than straight priests – that is blatantly obvious.

    However what is not mentioned in this study is the very high probability that catholic priests regardless of whether they are straight or gay are more likely to abuse children than non-priests.

    Being sexually dysfunctional is part and parcel of being a catholic priest. The catholic church’s weird insistence on priestly celibacy (originally implemented to prevent the wives of priests gaining money and property which the churchj wanted after the priest’s death) has attracted all sorts of weirdoes to the priesthood.

    Bottom line is that no parent should EVER allow their child to be left alone with a catholic priest. Even if they are not abusers they are sexually dysfunctional through their absurd celibacy vows

  3. The report states the absurdly obvious (a bit like the psychologist who was paid thousands of dollars to discover that racoons wash their food to get it clean), but it is in-house, and off-message. Let’s see how long it takes the Politbureau – sorry, the Vatican – to sink it without trace.

  4. Alistair Mann 18 Nov 2009, 6:07pm

    @Simon Murphy – A bit of a generalisation, no? All priests are sexual perverts who should be kept away from kids? Never seen any figures on how many priests abuse children but I suspect it’s kept very hush hush by the church. however one would logically assume it’s not a majority!

    As for the article I think the abuse of boys in the Catholic Church is more of a convenience issue than a sexuality issue. There are some paedophiles and perverts in the Catholic Church and they have extensive access to young choir boys. However whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant except in the Church’s criteria. Their blaming gays for molesting boys is unsubstantiated and even a probably biased survey such as this seems to refute that claim.

  5. Did I read that right, they claim 80% of child abuse is against boys? I was under the impression that most abuse was within the family, and between father or stepfather, and daughter. A course I was on once, nothing to do with sex or sexuality, and the participants were random, the question was asked who had been sexually abused during childhood. I was quite shocked at the high number of women who raised their hands. I don’t recall any men raising their hand at all.

  6. Alistair Mann 18 Nov 2009, 7:12pm

    @Agnostic Yes I wondered about that statistic too. Wondered whether it meant 80% of children abused by Priests are boys which is probable, but if just boys it seems unlikely.

  7. That’s going to upset a few people in Rome. Always a good thing!

  8. Jean-Paul Bentham 18 Nov 2009, 8:05pm

    Call me what you want, but when commenting on The RCC, I would like to know what real experience the commenter has, or has had, within RCC parish life.

    As for me, a cradle-catholic and ex-monk, I still smell the faint scent of manure here, but I think it’s coming from the right place, e.g., the Nativity Scene.

    This study deserves our attention especially since it was carried out by women….already a tremendous improvement because women are not prone to defend the Boys’ Club. It’s a step in the right direction. I am looking forward to hearing more about it.

    However Simon Murphy scores a few points once again by saying:

    “Bottom line is that no parent should EVER allow their child to be left alone with a catholic priest. Even if they are not abusers they are sexually dysfunctional through their absurd celibacy vows.”

  9. Simon Murphy 18 Nov 2009, 8:42pm

    No 4: Alastair Mann: “@Simon Murphy – A bit of a generalisation, no? All priests are sexual perverts who should be kept away from kids?”

    I did not say that all priests are sexual perverts.

    I said that priests are more likely to abuse children than non-priests.

    That is an entirely different statement.

    And it is true.

    The catholic church’s shameful history (lasting generations) of child abuse shows how ingrained child abuse was in the organisation and how protecting known paedophiles was official church policy. I do not know how many priests abused children. But I do know that for generations being a priest granted a man respectability in society and unfettered access to children. It’s quite clear that such a proposition would be appealing to a child abuser/

  10. Brian Burton 18 Nov 2009, 9:24pm

    In any case, I think a Gay Priest usually feels a more moral resposability towards children than non-Gay Priests. Given ten Gay Preists and ten non-Gay, I bet my bottom dollar a good percentage more non-Gay Preists would be more likely to abuse kids than Gay Priests.

  11. Vo Dong Cung 18 Nov 2009, 10:57pm

    I hope the report will awake the whole world, special all the Christians

  12. Alistair Mann 19 Nov 2009, 1:50am

    Simon, I obviously misunderstood. The “don’t let your kids alone with a Catholic Priest” amongst other things seemed to imply they were all untrustworthy. I do think your comments do post some gernalisations/assumptions as fact, dare I say “as the gospel truth”? As I say there are no figures so hard to tell if the Church environment/priesthood breeds/encourages paedophilia or is a safe haven for paedophiles. We do however know it is a serious problem within the Catholic church, one that the leadership seems loathe to tackle/ seems to encourage (?) and instead blames on “the sinful gays”.

  13. Brian Burton 19 Nov 2009, 8:31am

    Alistair Mann,
    Simon Murphy is at prestnt the ‘atheist Pope’ in waiting and he feels duty bound to condem all men and woman of any established Religion. Therefore, speaking as a Gay Christian, I find Simon more to be pitied than blamed!

  14. It is obvious from this article that the slow light of dawn is creeping into the mind set of the established churches that being gay is normal. Survey after survey is proving this fact, a fact that we gays have known all our lives. Slowly the rest of the non-gay world is catching up and catching on to this fact. The fight for our rights continues.

  15. What I find particularly disturbing about this report, is that the RCC carried out this study in the first place, rather than a study to find out how they might actually put measures in place to prevent this abuse from ever happening again. I bet they were disappointed that the results turned out this way, I bet they were hoping to find some evidence to demonise gay people even more than they have already tried to do.

  16. Simon Murphy 19 Nov 2009, 10:36am

    No 12: Alastair: “The “don’t let your kids alone with a Catholic Priest” amongst other things seemed to imply they were all untrustworthy.”

    Well seriously?

    No sane parent would leave their child in the care of a stranger.

    Especially a stranger who is part of an organisation which is known to contain a much higher percentage of paedophiles than the general population, and whose leadership has made it policy to denigrate the victims of child abuse and to protect the perpetrators.

    I am not saying that all priests are paedophiles. But the fact that the church has not taken adequate responsibility for the numerous perverts in their clergy means they quite simply cannot be trusted.

    Brian dear – may I suggest you invest in a dictionary?

  17. Simon, as a guess, I’d say the abuse is mostly against boys simply becuase male priests (regardless of sexual preference) in the RC organisation have more (or exclusive) contact with boys, girls on the other hand tend to be managed by that flock of drag nazi’s, the nuns.

    As I said, I’m guessing…

  18. Robert, ex pat Brit 19 Nov 2009, 4:14pm

    The Vatican’s ruling that potential candidates for the priesthood with a perceived gay orientation or tendencies thereto must be weeded out and barred from entering the seminaries. It has not however indicated the criterion for weeding out the straight paedophiles, I wonder why?

    I can see Papa Ratzi having a hissy conniption when he reads this report.

    To digress, there is a new website in the U.S. dedicated to outing any gay priest or prelate who support discrimination against LGBT people, marriage equality as an example or meddling in the political process to affect the outcome of legislation granting us rights. It is for those who have any reports or documentation of closeted clerics advocating discrimination, including straight clerics engaged in sexual liaisons with the opposite sex.

  19. Alistair (12):
    Intuitively, it makes sense to me that there are quite likely to be a higher proportion of child abusers who are priests, than in the population at large. I have seen some statistics to support this, although I haven’t all day to spend looking; but just intuitively:
    – Media often reports that paedophiles will gravitate towards jobs where they can be near children. That surely applies to priests – historically they can be near children, in a trusted position traditionally “beyond reproach”, and with discovered misdemeanours covered-up by Church authorities
    – In the case of RC priests, they are almost by definition supposed to be “sexually unfulfilled”

    But I agree with Jax (1): how would they know? As far as I know it’s generally prohibited by Church authorities to be “Out” as a priest. Even in the general population, many gay people are not “Out”, so unless they got out the torture irons…

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.