Sex claims against US Church rise

Remove all ads!

I think Aldeth pretty much hit on it. The main disadvantage I see is the Catholic church is not allowing the fatherly/grandfatherly kind-of-guy to be a priest. The commitment of such men should not even be questioned.

As far as celebacy ... if a religion chooses celebacy as a means of dividing out the worthy from unworthy who am I to question it? I've been married, every married man knows you can survive indefinitely without sex. IMO the guys who are claiming celebacy is unnatural are either unmarried or haven't been married very long....

Thanks for the clarification Drew.

 

In related news, I'm getting married in August.

 

Are you trying to make me spit coke out my nose!?!
Again!?!
That was funny though.

(Psst, by the way, if she isn't giving it up as often as you wish, you ain't whipping her enough. Break out that whip & lets hear some screams of joy/pain.)

 

T2, I hear what you are saying. But the problems the clergy in the Catholic church are having indicate to me that the policy of priests being celibate for life is not working very well for many of the priests. I think the rate of priests who end up having sex with willing, adult parishioners of either sex is also pretty high.

As for homosexuality and pedophilia, one thing needs to be made crystal clear. In out Western society, pedophilic sex with either gender is always a rape. Always. Even if the child is 16 years old and appears fully consenting, the child is still defined as a child and therefore is not capable of giving consent. I agree with this position 110%.

Homosexuality is different. When it involves 2 consenting adults, there is no rape. I may disagree with homosexual behaviour quite strongly, but it is not rape. It is not and should not be a secular crime, whereas rape should always be such a crime -- and punished accordingly.

 

That's so funny - and so true. Especially once you have kids.

Not to be a kill-joy, but I once heard a joke that went as follows: Marriage is a life-long prison sentence with sex in the first year.

While I disagree with the first half of that statement, there is definitely some truth to the second half.

 

A bit off topic, but....

"If you put a penny in a jar every time you have sex during the first year of marriage, and then take a penny out every time you have sex after your first anniversary -- you will never empty the jar."

A quote I've heard many times (although the first time was on the Red Green Show).

 

Yeah, thanks - you two are total friggin' killjoys. Clear your calenders for August 2nd of 2010...I'm making you two give the eulogy at the funeral for my junk.

 

Or you could just invite them over for a three-way. (Or four-way if you want to include the wife.)

Edit: Oops! and I bugged Tal for derailment.

 

Crickets.

 

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I've decided it boils down to stress. David Drake once said that if you put a man in a jungle, he's going to do whatever it takes to get out of that jungle and return home. (He was referring to Vietnam) He went on to say that if the moral ramifications of that worry you, you might want to reconsider deploying people to the jungle.

I see that as relevant here. Some people may be very well suited for a life of celibacy. Others may not be -- it's a difficult life choice. For some, it may prove to be too difficult. Of course the priests know what the deal is going in, and I truly believe that the vast majority of them go in with good intentions (some of them hoping that membership in the priesthood will eventually burn away their "lustful" desires.) But that doesn't always work, and knowing something intellectually is a far cry from living it for the rest of your life. I would say that some crack under the pressure, as the natural human desire for sexual intimacy places stress on them. Now, I would venture that a LOT of them turn to women, probably nuns who labor under the same restriction, and this explains many of the babies "found" at convent doors. Others turn to other priests and do it the gay way (these are likely the gay men who joined the priesthood hoping it would remove their desire for men.) The ones who had previous pedophilic tendencies turn to children.

Now the Church claims to believe in forgiveness. I like the idea of forgiveness, as I've done some bad things in my life. But when the Church sweeps pedophilic rapes (or any rapes for that matter) under the rug using the confessional as a shield, I get angry.

 

The church is really big on forgiveness. Was a story in the news recently about an eight or nine year old girl who had gotten pregnant after a rape and the mother I think it was helped the little girl get an abortion. She was excommunicated while the rapist was forgiven by the church.

 

LKD, this is entirely dependant on the culturally recognized age of consent, and I think our culture is on the verge of recognizing that our commonly assumed age of consent (18) is inaccurate. Many places already have laws where, so long as both parties are within X years of each other, it isn't statutory rape (rape relying on age of consent only). A 15 and 14 year old can have sex legally in some states, without any legal action being taken, or an 18 and 17 year old.

The point is, trying to define a set age at which all members of a society are mature enough to understand and knowingly consent to sex is a logical mistake, though it may be a legal necessity (that's questionable). People mature at different rates, and further, different people have different definitions of 'mature'. I could easily argue that a sizable portion of American society over the age 35 has never reached real sexual maturity. I could also argue that, in today's society, the average 15 year old already has. To use legal definitions in a moral arguement is, at best, iffy, and at worst, outright faulty.

 

That happened in my hometown, the girl was only 9 years old, and not only the mother but the doctors were also excommunicated. According to the archbishop the stepfather committed a sin but it was not worth of excommunication. Anyway, the church, IMHO, lost a great opportunity to stay quiet.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I think that it IS a legal necessity. And in my jurisdiction there are loopholes for 19 year olds who have 17 year old girlfriends and such.

But come on, now. I don't care how mature she is, in today's Western world, a 25 year old guy having sex with a 16 year old girl is wrong, plain and simple. And don't get me started on altar boys, who can be under 14, and the priest is in his 30s or 40s? No frigging way. I know the line can get hazy, but especially in cases where the age difference is marked, I think setting a legal threshold for age of consent is vital. Otherwise things get too subjective. One ironclad rule that applies to all.

Maybe the age of consent should be lowered to 16 or something -- if they have the judgement to drive a car, then they have the judgement to have sex -- but whatever that age is, it must be enforced, in order to keep the difference between consenting sexual contact and predatory behaviour (statutory rape).

 

In most states in the US, the age of consent IS 16 (although it is variable from state to state). The laws in place in most states are there to avoid statutory rape charges when both people are within a year or two of the age of consent. To use your example, in most places it is totally legal for a 16 or 17 year old girl to have sex with a 25 year old man. It isn't legal though for that same man to have sex with a 13 or 14 year old girl. But that 13 or 14 year old girl can legally have sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. Many of the suggestions you have regarding large age differences are already on the books, but they are for ages considerably younger than 18.

 

No, I know it happens, and with all too much frequency. What I want to know is, what the **** is wrong with these men? I'm 35, and I don't have much in common with 15 year old girls in terms of romantic attachment -- hell, my oldest daughter is 13 for the love of God! IMHO, a guy in his 30s who is having sex, consensual though it may be, with a girl that young is only in it for the sex. He is taking advantage of her, even if she isn't mature enough to know it. Many of the cases I am familiar with locally involve married men (I had some connections to the school for unwed mothers here in my city. I learned that many of the girls will not declare who the father is because they don't want his reputation or family to be sullied. Unbelievable.)

I know it was common in years gone by -- I mean, there's 13 years between my parents -- but in this day and age when we know so much more about human development, I say it is sick and wrong.

 

Well many here have already said it so I'll make it official -- I'm sick and wrong. There is 13 years difference between Mrs Bruno and myself. When we started dating she was 27 and I was 40.

... unless you meant a 35 year old having sex with a 15 year old (although I was propositioned by a 16 year old when I was 30 -- I turned her down even though 16 was legal there). In that case I'm not in the running. However, you give less credit to 15 year-olds than I do. I knew a lot of teenage girls (typically 16-19) who went after older men (professionals in their 30's and 40's) because the older men were more generous -- the girls had no desire for a long term relationship, they were just acquiring stuff they wanted for (in their opinion) a very small price. And yes, the men were in it for the sex. But aren't men always in relationships for the sex?

 

I think the issue is not age, but actual mental maturity. If they understand the risks and potential consequences of sex, are capable of making a rational decision on it on their own, and are capable of resisting outside pressure (say, from bosses, friends, older people, etc.), then the decision should be theirs to make, regardless of age. Unfortunately, that's not something easily discerened in a legal setting. Hell, professional psychologists who spend hours with the person may still disagree in many cases.