Do pedophile priests really believe?

Christopher Hitchens, at the Council for Secular Humanism, asked an interesting question in his article, "Belief in Belief."

Hitch wondered if those who argue for religious belief really believe what they claim to believe. He had a hard time imagining that the priests convicted of child-rape sincerely believed in divine judgment. How could they endanger their supposedly immortal souls in that way if they really believed? And what about those in the church hierarchy who helped protect them from punishment in this world?
Does not the Bible suggest these guys are in serious trouble? In Matthew 18:6 it says: "...but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

I suspect a lot (but not all) of those pedophile priests, and those who protect them, do believe and still think they are going to heaven. However, before I explain how that's possible I should note that I still ask similar questions about the faith healers that James Randi exposed in his decades old book, "The Faith Healers."

James Randi exposed Peter Popoff, Oral Roberts, Rod Sherrill, Pat Robertson and other ministers who claimed to be God's anointed and then used magician's tricks to perpetrate frauds. Randi showed how some of their tricks were done, like Popoff using a radio to get information from his wife about which diseases a person wanted to be cured of. He exposed their lies and plain old trickery. These guys actually hurt people and seeing human beings getting fleeced unmercifully by these frauds should bother everyone, and yet Peter Popoff is still out there, still showing up on TV, and still scamming people. If more people were aware of these methods, fewer people might be hurt and their abuses of trust and their harmful dishonesty might not go unpunished.

Surely, one would first think, this racketeering and exploitative side of fundy Christianity has to be done by people who are secretly sociopath atheists and who know they are exploiting gullible fools. Often it turns out not to be the case and the fraud will feel religiously justified in using lies and tricks to "increase people's faith."

I think Hitchens is wrong, for somewhat different reasons, in suspecting that pedophile priests can not believe in their religion and still commit their crimes. Remember, in Christianity people are saved by faith, by believing, not by how they act in this world. Jesus forgives sins, as long as you believe in Jesus.

Also, many forms of Christianity define "sin" very broadly. It's not just the things we do that might harm others (or ourselves), it's every primitive emotion, from jealousy to anger to lust (even merely "lusting in your heart" as Jimmy Carter would say) to pride to being selfish, that is also a "sin." Since we can't control how we feel, we are all sinners. You are also supposed to "love your neighbor as yourself" which is almost an impossible dictate if you take it literally. Obviously my Christian neighbors don't love me as much as much as they love themselves else they'd buy me one of those high definition TVs too or, if not me, at least go off to India or Africa and help all those poor people who really need it. Very few Christians do this even if the religion does produce a few who go that far.

Every bit of selfish self interest in your thoughts and actions, such as taking any pleasure or pride in having done something good rather than an egoless pleasure in the fact that good was done, is sin. Some forms of Christianity create as much guilt as possible because it intends to exploit feelings of guilt and thus people with more genuine guilt to feel are going to be more attracted to the religion.

I can brush off that kind of extreme guilt tripping and not feel guilty about my pride, anger or jealousy. Those emotions are just human and they usually serve a useful function. For me, a more or less normal heterosexual male, there's not much sexual guilt to exploit (I'm more inclined to feel guilty about not feeling sexually attracted towards nice people who are attracted to me which is something Christianity doesn't even acknowledge) but if you're out of the normal loop, such as a homosexual or worse, a pedophile who can't help but possibly damage kids should they give in to the desire, then there is more real guilt to exploit.

If you're a pedophile it's a lot harder to brush off the guilt tripping when your desires give you something to really feel guilty about. Thus you'll be more attracted to the cure Christianity promises. The New Testament explicitly promises to change you once you accept Christ and that's something we atheists can't honestly promise yet with all our scientific knowledge.

"That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness."
-- Ephesians 4:22-24

We don't understand enough, yet, how sexual orientation happens or how it can be changed. However, lack of real results doesn't stop religions from promising things they can't deliver. Thus what is demonstrated by the pedophilia scandal is that the promised changes are a fraud.

What's interesting about the pedophilia scandals that made national headlines over the last few decades is the large amount of homosexuality rather than just pedophilia. The scandals had some people speculating that there was more pedophilia in the priesthood than in the general population. However, according to Wikipedia, a report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops found accusations against priests was about equal to such abuse in similar institutions such as education. I suspect that's only because we haven't caught them all yet. However, you will, of course, find pedophiles seeking access to children in the same way you'll find more necrophilia in funeral parlors and forensic labs than in high school education or computer programming. While the Church's own findings may or may not be honest we can still see that the church's scandals don't fit the usual pattern of pedophile crimes that get reported in other institutions. Outside of the church pedophilia is far more varied. It's still usually adult males, but they're usually victimizing young girls and there will be some adult females victimizing young boys and fewer instances of homosexual pedophilia. With the church, however, it was mostly homosexual pedophilia and the perpetrators were 100 percent male, a male-only Roman Catholic priesthood, and in 90 percent of these cases, the victims were boys, either prepubescent or teenage.

Just judging by the priests caught (who knows how many haven't been caught since no other institution worked so hard to hide it) it seems abundantly clear that the number of homosexual pedophiles is much higher in the Catholic Church than in the general population. Even higher than the percentage of school teachers, music teachers, athletic teachers who also have a lot of contact with children of both sexes.

And it's not just Catholics who have a problem with homosexuality. Remember Ted Haggard and Sen. Larry Craig.

There are many more Bible passages condemning homosexuality than there are passages condemning pedophilia. In fact, except for the first passage I quoted above, (the one about the "heavy millstone hung around his neck") which isn't really about sex, I don't think there are any passages condemning pedophilia. It may seem no worse than any other sexual activity. These priests were an officially celibate clergy of a Church that claimed not homosexuality, even between consenting adults, was a sin, but any sex out of wedlock.

And in Christianity, since all sins result in the same punishment, they are all equal in that regard. Thus, judging by its claimed punishment, in some forms of Christianity stealing a loaf of bread or telling a white lie is as bad as raping a child. The only real sin is not believing in its insane doctrines.

UPDATE:
Newly released records from a California lawsuit settlement show the extent of the Milwaukee Catholic Archdiocese's efforts to conceal priest's sex abuse.

UPDATE 2:
The article in question is also posted on Richard Dawkins site and one of the comments there seems to successfully contradict my speculations here. Aposter calling himself dryope says that pedophilia can not be characterized by sexual orientation. It's more as if children, both male and female, are a third category of sexual orientation.

Articles are quoted:

...many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children -- boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

Another article here.

This view is supported by cases of individuals who have suddenly developed pedophilia due to a brain tumor. It suggests that the higher number of boys may simply be a question of access. Girls can't be choir boys after all.

Another comment there, by Laurie Fraser, suggests that it might have been common for catholic families to send their "suspect" sons into the ministry. It shielded the families from having to deal with a homosexual (or pedophile) son, and provided him with an "outlet" for his frustrations.

Sam Harris very politely disagrees

Sam Harris' response to Andrew Sullivan has been up for awhile, but I've only gotten round to it now. The most notable thing about Sam's new response is how it differs from my own and Dan Clem's on superciliosus.

Last time I blogged about the Harris/Sullivan debate there was a lot of overlap between how I responded to Andrew and how Sam did. We each addressed the same basic points Andrew made but with different examples and arguments. This time Sam touches on points I didn't cover and I touched on points he didn't cover. There is almost no overlap in which aspects of Andrew's argument that we've each addressed. That's in part a measure of how much was wrong with Andrew Sullivan's argument but also because, for the most part, Sam doesn't deal with Mr. Sullivan's essay any more than necessary. Sam wants the questions he has already asked in his past essays answered.

In all probability we could find all Andrew's arguments refuted in Russell Glasser's and Matt Dillahunty's counter-apologetics encyclopedia, Iron Chariots (wiki.ironchariots.org). We don't really need Andrew to learn about Christianity and Catholicism. We need Andrew only to find out about Andrew, one man with his own peculiar interpretation of his religion.

I just ignored Mr. Sullivan's claim that "we are evolutionarily programmed for faith," while Sam notes that this is debatable (I'd say very debatable) and then Sam accepts it for the sake of argument to show how it doesn't support Andrew's implied claim, that since we are programmed for faith there must be something out there to have faith in. Sam shows how we can't conclude that any specific religious doctrine is likely to be true or even say that religious faith is desirable in our own time, or even compatible with our long-term survival as a species.

Sam on the other hand ignores Andrew's remark that, "God-as-love is no small idea; it is an immense idea." I used that line to launch into several paragraphs on how the idea of God-as-love is an immense contradiction considering how the biblical God supposedly damns people to eternal Hell and how his behavior in the Old Testament was deeply antagonistic and controlling. I noted biblical passages such one about how the Midians were killed, on God's instructions, all of them except the virgin girls.

That's an absurdly tough kind of "love" we find in the Bible. Fundamentalist religions tend to see the world in terms of a battle between good and evil. This Manichaean paranoia is built into the Bible and moderate religion cannot hide it. There is a dualism between good and evil and God and all his acts are, by definition, good. But "good" is NOT really the opposite of "evil." The opposite of "good" is "bad." The opposite of "evil" is "'gracious,' 'nurturing,' 'merciful,'" etc..

This Manichaean paranoia is also evident in the fundamentalist Bush Administration where they see the world in terms of “you’re either with us or against us” which is seen in their specious claims that any criticism of the war in Iraq, or indeed, the Bush Administration is the same as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. They are convinced that their actions are sanctioned by a higher power. This is how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power.

The only real overlap comes from Sam and me both commenting on Andrew's remarks about death. Sam actually made an argument and noted that it's not as difficult to imagine one's own nonexistence as it seems. We don't find it hard to accept that we didn't exist before we were born, so why is it difficult to believe that we'll cease to exist after we die? To quote one of Sam's better lines: "The 14th century got along fine without you (well, not so fine)." Sam even asks, "How is your last essay anything but exhibit A in a criticism of religion as 'the denial of death'?"

I quite agree, and that does seem to be a key factor religious belief; to deny death. However, I didn't make the argument Sam did. I just noted that Andrew mentioned fear and existential panic and then I asked "what is to fear in death?" Death is a reason to be sad, you're saying good-bye to everything you know, but it is Christianity that has tried to make us to fear death with its threats of Hell. Then I noted some ideas on how humanity's idea of the afterlife had evolved to include Hell long before Christianity used the concept and before Judaism adopted it.

Life is indeed too frail and too short for our tastes and we want more. Religion promises us more. It promises us knowledge and hope beyond what science can give us. It's no wonder people feel compelled explore religious claims. We aren't born knowing how the world works and I explored religion myself. I was raised Christian and when I started questioning I read lots of books and I hung around with some liberal Christians and fundamentalists too. Then later I looked at other religions and tried Transcendental Meditation. And after awhile I finally decided religious people didn't really know what they thought they did. There were always these horrible plot holes in their stories. I gave them the chance and they failed to earn my faith. Other ways of knowing, science and skepticism, earned my faith and trust.

Andrew has said, on his blog, after the flaws in his reasoning had already been pointed out by Sam:

Reasoning about faith is a paradox. Some readers have asked when I'm simply going to surrender to Sam. Well: in many ways I have surrendered. I'm fascinated by what reason can illuminate about faith - and have found Sam's arguments enriching to my own faith. But I can no more be reasoned out of faith than I was reasoned into it. I really have no choice in the matter. But I hope to understand it better and to see it in the truest light possible.

Andrew's claim that he can not be reasoned out of a faith that he was not reasoned into is absurd from a rational perspective and there seems to be an assumption of something supernatural in his faith (indeed, it's explicit in some Christian doctrine that faith is a supernatural gift, a grace, from God). This isn't normal human faith. Normal human trust and faith has to be earned. For example, many Americans trusted Bush and Cheney in the run up to the Iraq war. Why not? The majority of Democrats voted for giving Bush the power to start the war. Evidence was offered at the U.N. about aluminum tubes Iraq had that could only be used to process nuclear material. Our government supposedly had access to information we didn't have and it was their job and not ours to know these things. We just expect some kind of competence we can't achieve, without making it our job, from our government when dealing with these details that are over our heads.

For many Americans it was reason enough to trust them and just go on with their lives and let the Bush administration do its job. Voters didn't have a choice until they got to vote again. As they started seeing the claims and predictions of Bush and Cheney falling short their trust fell away and most of us voted for another option, Democrats. There were no WMD. The aluminum tubes weren't used to process nuclear material. The insurgency was not in its last throes as Cheney had claimed. And naturally, as these failures accumulated, more Americans, including Andrew, started to doubt the honesty and/or competence of the people they had elected. Most of Americans stopped trusting them as we naturally should. The Bush administration failed to earn our faith when they had the chance. Even Andrew Sullivan looks upon those who still have faith in the Bush administration today as being a bit irrational. Now why doesn't Andrew's faith in Christianity fail him as much as his faith in the Bush Administration has? Was the fact that Andrew was reasoned into this faith in Bush the reason he could be reasoned out of it? That line of argument doesn't actually make sense.

The evidence against Christianity is stronger than the evidence against the Bush administration's case for war. Yet, Andrew's faith in his religion is not shaken like his faith in Bush was and he doesn't even try to present evidence for having faith outside of mentioning vaguely a few very subjective experiences.

The other side of Andrew's claim, that he did not acquire his religious faith through reason, is rather vague. How did he acquire it? I assume he really acquired it during childhood. He grew up Catholic. However, I think Andrew, if pressed, would claim his faith is really a supernatural gift from God, for that is Catholic teaching, and he really doesn't see it as something he was indoctrinated into as a child. A child has good reason to trust his parents and his teachers and so when they tell the child there is a Santa Claus, there is a God and Jesus loves you, the child trusts them, he has faith in those who are teaching him. These parents and teachers earned this faith by actively supporting a child who can't live on his own. The child as easily believes in Santa Claus as he believes there is continent called Australia where kangaroos hop around. The child isn't reasoned into belief in either Santa Claus or God or Jesus or Australia, children simply trust those whom they depend on and drink in whatever they are taught. This is where Andrew really got this faith (that he was not reasoned into) and if he had been raised by Buddhist or Muslim parents instead he'd have acquired a different faith and on some level Andrew knows this.

There is a big hole in Andrew's logic on this point. Other religions believed with the same sincerity as Andrew's, as Sam points out, speak heavily against Andrew's evidenceless faith being the supernatural gift he seems to think it is. Andrew says he has no choice in the matter. If so, he is saying he doesn't have the ability to consider his own faith rationally when confronted with the evidence Sam has offered. Andrew can't even imagine any evidence that would change his mind. Not Jesus' bones, not the written letters of Roman frauds discussing how they were inventing Christianity for profit, not a message out in deep space written with glowing plasma in letters several times the mass of Jupiter explicitly explaining no religious books are true. Absent from Andrew's considerations is any idea that reason and argument can challenge his faith. His faith is magically above argument and reason. It is supernaturally irrational.

When Sam gives Andrew the Monty Hall deal of offering Andrew three theological choices, it's because Andrew forces Sam into calling out Andrew on what it is Andrew explicitly has faith in for Andrew can't even say what that is. This is the Monty Hall deal Sam offered:

I'd like you to focus, however, on a few competing doctrines in terms of their plausibility:
(1) There is no God.
(2) There is a God, but all of our religions have distorted Her reality. Jesus was just an ordinary prophet who happened to become the center of a myth-making cult. God loves everyone and has never been concerned about what a person believes. After death, all people, Christians and non-Christians, simply merge with the Deity in a loving embrace.
(3) Christianity is the one true religion, and Catholics have the truest version of it.

Sam asks, "How much money would you (Andrew) be willing to wager on the divinity of Jesus? Would you bet your life on it?" It should be noted that early Christians did bet their lives on it and they became lion food. Andrew has not bet his life, he has only invested time, energy, and emotion in being a Catholic. And given the benefits Andrew claims from his faith, Sam says, "This seems less like an investment and more like a withdrawal of funds." And that maybe more of a cut at Andrew's rational thinking than Andrew realizes. The New Testament and early Christian history is full of the heavy prices the followers of Jesus paid. Andrew's claims of benefit ring hollow in context.

Sam suspects that if proposition (2) were revealed as true, Andrew would be both consoled (who wouldn't?) and not surprised to learn that Christianity was wrong. Considering Andrew's evasiveness about what it is exactly that he believes I'd say Sam is making a smart bet. Wishful thinking and the denial of death seem to be the foundation of Andrew' s faith so far.

Consider the ability of Nigerian scammers to con people out of money often depends on such wishful thinking.

I've gotten spam email telling me I've won the lottery or that a relative has died and left me a fortune. There is a part of me that wants to believe it, but my rational mind tells me this has got to be a scam when I see the scammer wants money from me first or simply too much information, enough to steal my identity. It's called advance fee fraud and it is a confidence (faith) trick in which a sucker is persuaded to advance relatively small sums of money in the hope of realizing a much larger gain.

According to Wikipedia, "The Nigerian scam is hugely successful. According to a 1997 newspaper article they: "have confirmed losses just in the United States of over $100 million in the last 15 months,' said Special Agent James Caldwell, of the Secret Service financial crimes division. 'And that's just the ones we know of. We figure a lot of people don't report them.'"

If you can't confront just how dubious these propositions are then you might just get taken in by a Nigerian con man, or buy a copy of "The Secret," the book by Rhonda Byrne, or fly an airplane into a skyscraper because of your faith. The more faith one invests in these dubious propositions the harder it becomes to evaluate specific claims or article of faith.

A Christian's life is supposedly a pathetic little thing to give in return for his reward in eternity. Are they heroes of truth or are they suckers who got scammed? Or are they something else?

I'd like to see Sam continue that line of speculative questions. Would Andrew sing while being feed to the lions? Have the benefits of his faith been worth the price he might be asked to pay?