Why do people assume that married priests wouldn’t abuse children at the same rate as celibate priests?


Or have affairs with adults on the side at the same rate as celibate priests?

I’m really against this push for married priests. If there ever was a time to have married priests, it’s definitely not during a scandal


The reason why people assume this is that a wife is another set of eyes.

One more individual keeping an eye on the man, keeping him in line.

Single men just do a lot more crazy things than their married brethren, both illegal crazy things as well as legal antics. If you look at the men serving time in the penitentiary- or being sent to the electric chair- a lot more unattached single fellows.

Its just people’s intuitive feeling here.


I think it’s not so much that married men would not be abusers, it’s more about making many more men eligible to be priests. The likelihood of abusers being found in a much larger pool of potential priests is mathematically much smaller.

I’m not in favor of it but I feel like there’s a chance we might see it someday if there’s a shortage of men entering the vocation.


Meh, the orthodox have married priests and they don’t have a surge of people wanting to be priests. Same with the anglicans and episcopals


Um, are you serious? The reason why most men in prison are single is because they get dumped when they get put in prison. Married men do illegal things too. If you’re going to say single men do it at a higher rate imma need your source plz

And btw many wives enable their husbands to sin. Cough eve cough cough


People in general, who haven’t either done significant research into abuse or worked with abuse cases in the criminal justice system or social welfare system, have a lot of misperceptions and delusions about child sexual abuse.

Some do not think married men commit sexual abuse because if the man is married then he is probably “normal” as in does not have perverted sexual desires. Obviously marriage does not mean a man will not commit rape, child sexual abuse, or other sex crimes, as there are many, many married men who commit sex crimes.

Some think that a man who has a sexual outlet (his wife) will not commit sex crimes. Some people even think that a man going without sex is likely to warp him into doing perverted things, which is ridiculous. Again, this is not the case, and also, sexual abuse of a minor or a vulnerable person is not about having a sexual outlet, it’s about having power over a weaker person.

Some also think that all or most of the sexual abuse issues in the Church are being caused by homosexuals, and having married priests would eliminate gays from the priesthood. While having married priests might encourage straight men to become priests, and it might cut down on the number of clergy behaving badly with adult males, I don’t think it would solve the problem of sexual abuse of minors, since there are many cases of married men who sexually abuse underage girls and/or boys. Also, if we have married priests, we will no doubt have some priests cheating on their spouses with other women (or even other men).


If only everyone was as wise and as level headed as you, @Tis_Bearself


I think it is more complex than that. Celibacy forms a key part of clericalism. It also raises sex to the level of something more special for priests than for anyone much else. It attracts a group of men who are not typical men. Read the Australian Royal Commission on ‘clericalism’.


I have read a lot on this subject and worked on cases involving it.

Most people do not sit around reading up on sex crimes, much less sex crimes against children. A whole lot of people get sick just thinking about it and quickly find a way to come to some biased conclusion so they can separate it from themselves/ humanity (example: "Gay people molest minors. Gay people are sickos and don’t belong in our society. A normal man likes to have sex with adult women and gets married, like me. ") and then move on to the next topic.


I disagree with many things the Australian Royal Commission, which is a political body and appears to be biased against the Church as well as not very well informed on a number of aspects of this topic, had to say. I don’t think anything is gained by reading their hodgepodge of “conclusions”. Not to mention that, not being Australian and dealing with a significantly different legal system here in the states, most of what they say is simply foreign to me and lacking in value.


There have been several studies on this, BTW.

Sure, married men commit crimes, but single men do more.


Its findings are in large part fully supported by the Australian Bishops. They have raised no issues with the Commission’s procedures. It is the type of investigatory body with the least political element associated with it. I can’t see what the different Australian and US systems have to do with priestly celibacy.



It is better to be celibate than married. Of course it’s raised. Christ was celibate. Paul was clear on how it’s better to be celibate in the bible


When we use the word, “single” are we referring to unmarried people only or people without romantic relationships?


And maybe that’s how it is in Denmark but I just don’t think a study on how men are in Denmark is indicative of how men are worldwide


I think the tendency to do criminal things is more a function of age than marital status.

Young men who are more likely to be single are more prone to criminal activity than older men who are more likely to be married.

Marriage is no guarantee of virtue. If that were the case there would be no such thing as divorce.


I don’t see a point in continuing to argue this with you. Having to explain the legal system differences alone would take a large part of my time. I also disagree with your overall opinion of the Australian Commission and I also suspect, from your general posting habits on this board, that you prefer to adopt the viewpoints of public bodies critical of the Church because you yourself have a lot of issues with the Church. Therefore, we are fundamentally opposed and any further discussion would be unproductive.

Have a nice day.


Maybe, but I was answering the question of why people think that married men are less of a problem than single guys, which was the question posed in the OP.

Not whether single men are actually more of a handful.


Wow, what a ghastly opinion of men - that only “another set of eyes” is what keeps us in line, and that otherwise we’re not to be trusted.


Why would this prevent a man who is inclined to want to sexually molest boys and young men from doing so? Would such a man even want to marry a woman?

This seems to suggest that a normal man would decide to molest a child or young man out of sexual frustration. Normal men don’t behave like that. It also implies a very low opinion of men as if we are like beasts whose sexual desires must be fed and of we’re fed a normal diet we’ll become deviants.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.