Generating the question of whether those prone to sexually abusing kids seek out the priesthood as a way to enforce repression on their innate desires, or whether the repression of the priesthood causes them to express more normal innate desires inappropriately in abuse of children.

I doubt vows of celibacy turn people into chomos, as opposed to the grand old priestly tradition of keeping a bit on the side, or visiting the local brothel (inconveniently, no longer owned by the church). Priesthood did, however, offer the perfect billet for predators, with automatic deference, no need for a sham marriage, and unsupervised access to children. And when they're caught, shunted off to new hunting grounds by the hierarchy.

The more light shone on this evil, the better.

Weaver wrote:Generating the question of whether those prone to sexually abusing kids seek out the priesthood as a way to enforce repression on their innate desires, or whether the repression of the priesthood causes them to express more normal innate desires inappropriately in abuse of children.

We would first have to demonstrate, presumably, that this figure is unusual for the time. A UK survey recently reported that 7% of adults were sexually assaulted as minors. Although that was split into 11% of women and 3% of men.

Your idea might have some merit in the idea that someone starved of sexual contact might resort to rape. Prisons in American may back this up. However, I honestly can't see why raping a child would be the obvious action for someone in this situation, rather than simply visiting a prostitute or having sex with someone normally. It's not as if a priest would be starved of female attention. Of course, there are reports to suggest that gay men are over-represented in the priesthood, particularly in this time period, where for many, it would have been the only alternative to marrying a woman. Gay men in the priesthood may have had fewer legitimate outlets for their sexuality, of course, and graver consequences if they were caught. And figures from America suggest that over 80% of victims of sexual abuse by priests were boys, which is completely the opposite of what is reported to happen in wider society. And this may, of course, be a fairly straightforward explanation for the older abuse victims (in the American report, 27% were between 15 and 17, which would seem within the age limits of normal attraction). In America, by far the most abused age group was between 12 and 15. But why would priests abuse boys on such a scale, when in wider society, girls are far more likely to be the victims of abuse (is that claim even true?). To what extent does child abuse reflect the sexuality of the offender? Is a child abuser automatically a paedophile? Studies suggest not. Are we wrong to put so much emphasis on sexual attraction at all? And is it just that a priest was far more likely to be left alone with boys than with girls?

Are there any reports of sexual bullying in convents?

Look on the bright side, 93% aren't fucking kids.

This guy gives me hope. and he is not a Catholic. It was reported he didn't sexually abuse boys.

https://www.channel4.com/news/police-in ... ian-leader