Be honest. What was the first thing you thought when you read the title?
Sodomy? Buggery? Rape? Sexual repression?
Now ask yourself why you thought that and to what degree you think it understandable.
Did anyone think anything different? What on earth would that be?
Who would disagree that when a person on the planet hears the term "Catholic Priest" their mind is quickly and easily drawn to the sodomy of young boys?
This product of a mental process is not a statement, so it will be difficult for anyone to argue for or against; it can't be refuted, as it claims nothing. The fact that when we hear about Catholic Priests in the news, we next receive the thought that the issue has to do with a claim by a man that was raped, is not a logical conclusion derived from deductive reasoning. It is not empirically verifiable, because it is not a construct that propounds to say anything about nature. It occurs too quickly to be reasoned.
Therefore, the mental process of identifying Priests with sodomy of boys cannot be a conclusion derived by inductive reasoning: eg. the sun came up every morning until now, therefore it will come up tomorrow. It may appear as a causal relation, but this is not itself a rational conclusion. All you intuitively know is that there is something connecting the two things.
The problem with not being reasonable,is that there is no proposition, no sentence making a claim from which we can proceed to analyse, criticise, propound or refute. It's just an instant, automatic association between two data; but why is it also accompanied by a strong mental feeling about something in the world, so that we would treat it as we would a solid fact?
This status alone, of thinking that Priests and sodomy go together, would provide one with a weak reason to develop the process further into a proper argument, if it wasn't for one thing. It is more than a feeling. It is more than a mental thing, a thought. It comes with a powerful kind of understanding that rivals reasoning. It is supported by our understanding of ourselves, humanity, language and logic.
More than a strong feeling of association or causal relation, this strange kind of non-rational understanding makes sense to us. It makes sense to us because of the tools of reason we already have developed over a life-time, which apply themselves to the feeling as Kant's categories apply themselves to phenomena. Those tools are rational arguments we have developed from watching and learning about human nature, society and also our language and logic use/misuse.
The addition of how we understand humanity strengthens our faith in the feeling that there is a relation, possibly causal, between Catholic Priests and sodomy or any sexual intereference with little kids. That is because some of us know empirically how repressing sexual urges affects us. Many of us have experienced long periods of compulsory abstinence from sexual relations. We know how it feels, what it does to us, how it stretches our ability to cope and changes our perception of reality and even our morality. For some, it is too much to handle, and any thing with a hole in it will do.
Rape has nothing to do with power. To rape, you need an erection, which is derived by the anticipation, real or imagined, of impending sexual intercourse. Rape is about getting your rocks off. The power is a secondary bonus. It is also a necessary ingredient for rape. It is logically entailed that you be more powerful than your subject to rape them. Your prey must be weaker than you, or else you won't get off with them. Little boys and women are generally weaker than your average rapist: an adult male.
Therefore, Priests don't rape and fiddle with boys because it makes them feel powerful. If so, why don't they pay equal attention to adult clergy and support staff or parishioners? Because these are adults who can't be threatened from going to the police or fighting back.
Priests rape little boys because they need to get off really badly and little boys are easy to threaten and get your way with. They'll keep quiet. Their prey is often very impressionable, vulnerable, isolated, weak, the perfect target.
Now, why do Priests need to get off so badly? That is the real question. Answer that and you are half way to a solution or at least a proper explanation.
Priests need to get off really badly because they are sexually repressed, because the Church forbids them from arguably the most powerful of urges, sexual satisfaction. Priests are forbade to engage in anything sexual: whether sexual relations, self-gratification, marriage, intimacy with others, the whole shabang.
It is as simple as that.
Without reasoning, we all say to ourselves, "That explains the vast numbers of incidents displayed in the media every week". Imagine how many go unreported.
Solution: keep the vulnerable and weak away from the sexually excited or sexually repressed and powerful.
A maternity nurse once told me that my child was crying for just one of five reasons. She said the needs of a baby are simple. They just wan't the basics in life: sustanance, physical comfort, reassurance, warmth and maternal contact (mum's love).
Adult males are the same. Their needs have evolved, but are still few in number and fundamentally simple: sex, power, love, comfort, survival, pleasure. Take any one of these away and you are playing with fire. Take the most powerful one away and you are playing with fire and dowsed in petrol.
