News Stories

Who is to Blame for Priest Pedophilia?

We've all heard about the fact that so many Catholic clergy are "in the closet." It's hard to believe, but it's true: The Vatican denies that this is the problem--instead, they are blaming the 60s "hippie" generation for today's epidemic of pedophilia in priests.

A five-year study commissioned by Roman Catholic bishops to provide an answer to what is causing the church's sexual abuse crisis has concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality are to blame. So what's the cause? They have conclused that priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, found themselves stranded amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and '70s. Sexual abuse of minors by priests rose sharply during those decades, and the problem only got worse when the church's hierarchy responded by showing more care for the perpetrators than the victims.

Homosexual men began entering seminaries "in noticeable numbers" from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this group became priests, in the mid-1980s, reports of sexual abuse of minors began to drop off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began entering the church. This goes along with what most psychologists report, which is that most sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual (often married) men. Many more boys than girls were victimized by priests, not because the perpetrators were gay, but simply because they had more access to boys than to girls.

In the May 17th edition of the New York Times, Laurie Goodstein quotes Robert M. Hoatson, a priest and a founder of Road to Recovery, who claims that he himself was abused, as saying, "(The report) deflects responsibility from the bishops and puts it on to a sociological problem. This is a people problem. It wasn't because of the ’70s, and it wasn't the '60s, and it wasn't because of the 1450s. This was something individuals did. "Predictably and conveniently, the bishops have funded a report that says what they've said all along, and what they wanted to hear back. Fundamentally, they've found that they needn't even consider any substantive changes."

Here at, we're ALWAYS willing to consider "substantive changes" about EVERYTHING, because that's the only way to find the truth (and we're not afraid to correct ourselves if we're wrong, either). If this is the kind of reporting you want to be here the next time you fire up your computer, be sure to support us: Subscribe today

You guys, please PLEASE have someone with some smarts monitoring what is posted in your news stories. My husband was a big fan at one time and now won't even look at the website anymore because of some of the stuff posted-- not just misinformation and silliness but actually damaging stuff. This article is a good example. Homosexuality and pedophilia are two completely different things. One is a natural variation on normal sexuality, the other is an act of violence against children. They are no more related than heterosexuality and pedophilia. This article makes it look like the two are closely related, if not one and the same.
And I have one other complaint-- when I have written emails alerting the site about incorrect information posted here, I never get a reply, even when I've requested one. If you can't accept criticism from a strong supporter (as I have been for years), what does that say about the integrity of this site? I'm interested in the truth because I believe, as I think you all do, that shedding light on the truth is the way to oppose evil. That said, I think this is a good site overall and most of the items posted on this site are informative and interesting; unfortunately, some really questionable stuff gets through periodically.

@Donna Duffy: as a sometimes concerned subscriber myself, that was my first impression from the first paragraph as well. The article later describes how the Vatican attributes the increase in pedophilia to factors other than sexual orientation, but I'm not sure that lets the writer off the hook. Who, BTW, I would think is Anne Strieber.

I've had issues before with Anne on this topic especially, and once wrote her to express my concern over what I perceived as sexuality bias in one of her blogs, plus what I had noticed in other articles where (IMO) gays are written about almost as if we were another alien race. Specifically, she wrote in her diary of 7/27/10,

"I think it's true that a long time liaison of two people IS impossible. Even if they have lots of things in common, just because one is male and the other female, they are basically different."

Does that statement not assume that all couples are male/female? Her response to me was dismissive and somewhat belittling, and blew off my concern in as few words as possible, saying I was looking to find bias where none was there. Obviously, the problem was ME and my plebian paranoia! I don't think she considered even for a moment that my point about how her language could be construed as having a sexuality bias could have any validity at all, so I certainly didn't respond further. Similarly, I doubt you'll get any traction with your concerns over the pedophila issue here.

Although I'm a big fan of Whitley Strieber, and I'm sure on the whole Anne is a good person and not a textbook "homophobe", it is sometimes hard to feel positive about the site when I find things like this that are (to me) opinionated, have poor editing standards (recent example, see today's headline "Whales are Tallking..." (tallking?), interpret all criticism as viscious and personal attacks, promotes its own products incessantly even within the "news" content, and at least in Anne's blog and interviews has a certain self-centered, elitist, the-famous-circles-we-go-around-in name dropping (sometimes with actual names withheld) attitude. Whitley, OTOH, has become an exceptionally good interviewer with an amazing ability to suspend disbelief and personal opinion for the benefit of fairness to the interviewee, and Dreamland downloads are the main reason I subscribe to the site.

I imagine if the Striebers read this, they might consider me one of the mind-controlled masses who are "out to get them." When nothing could be further from the truth. In the end, I think I just have to take Unknown Country as the mixed bag I find of valuable and useless information, and gifted but imperfect personalities. Ultimately, that's my advice to you, too, do your own sorting. My best guess is that it's not going to change.

BobInNJ, whilst I have never read the article of Anne's you are referring to, I have read your quote and I see nothing there of any bias in any form. Your extrapolation of bias because she didn't include same sex couple is a bit far fetched, if she has to include same-sex couples in that sentence then she would to be fair have to include every cultural type when mentioning the word "People". Clearly in the quote you mentioned she is talking about the axiom of men are from mars, women are from Venus. This is a philosophical idea, not so much a social or psychological one, it can be applied to any relationship, even ones where non stereotypical roles are in place, it is quite literally stating that everyone is different.

As for Donna, did you read the entire article? She later remarks how homosexual priests have done a great thing for the church, how they seem to bring better morals than heterosexual priests. Perhaps this is a bit of anti-bigotry, however it doesn't seem like that was the point, Anne is here pointing out the fears that some people have of homosexual priests, and highlighting the fact that those people are completely wrong. Go read your local newspaper if you want to find more examples.

OK, I think things are getting way to serious here. I found some natural remedies on-line that might be helpful for the disposition…..Hopefully I haven’t offended anyone with a typo. I simply cut, pasted then did a spell check.

Natural remedies
• Bach Original Flower Remedies such as Beech promotes tolerance and a sense of compassion and unity with others. Take this when you feel angry, critical and intolerant towards other people. The Bach Original Flower Remedy Vine can help if you feel like you might be being a little tyrannical towards others. You can also try Rescue Remedy which is a blend of five Bach flower essences especially designed to help you cope with stressful situations. (Always read the label on a product.)∏
• Acupuncture can improve wellbeing and restore balance.
• Reiki is said to help aid you to harmonize yourself.
• The Alexander Technique could be beneficial in managing your emotions in a healthier way so you are less likely to criticize.
• Body balance work such as yoga and shiatsu can help your body and mind connect in a way that promotes general happiness and a sense of wellbeing. If you can become more content in yourself, then you will be less likely to criticize others.
• Aromatherapy can help you to unwind and let go. Try putting a few drops of jasmine, juniper, and lavender or ylang-ylang oil in your bath.
∏ On no account should prescribed medication be discontinued, except under a doctor’s supervision.

Other ways to help
• Think before you speak – the next time you open your mouth to criticize someone or something, take a moment and really think about why you want to criticize that person. Is it them that has the problem, or is it more to do with you?
• Re-frame – if an overly critical thought crosses your mind, try to think of something nice about that person to counteract it. It will make you feel better and could improve your feelings towards that person. This is very helpful, especially if the person is someone you love!
• Improve your self-image – if you are unhappy with your life, why not take active steps towards changing it, rather than blaming others for your situation? Exercise, take up a hobby or revamp your wardrobe – do anything that will make you feel good!
• Exercise and nutrition – exercising and eating well will enable you to be the best possible version of yourself you can be. Exercise increases the production of endorphins which will make you feel better and you’ll be less likely to criticize others.

@David Hewitt: your comments responding to mine are well taken, and I understand what you're saying. I also can easily believe that is where Anne was coming from when she wrote it. However, the diary entry in question was about just "Marriage", and the preceding five paragraphs seemed to apply to any couple trying to build and maintain a successful relationship. Then WHAMMO, she says, "one is male and the other female." So in the preceding five paragraphs, where I felt I could relate to that very human struggle, it turns out may partner and I (still working on our relationship after 11 years) were not invited. This is the type of slight, inadvertent to varying degrees, that gay people deal with all the time, and a little more "inclusion" or at least clarity in speech would go a long way. That was all I was suggesting when I wrote to her, but she didn't want to hear it. I think if you read the diary (see ) and imagine yourself as being in a gay marriage (as I am, essentially, in a "civil union",) you might feel the sense of being marginalized out of the blue.

I'll give you another example that I think helps illustrate my point: how common is it that people will talk to a young boy and say, "someday you'll grow up and meet the right girl", or to a girl, "the right guy"? The assumption of heterosexuality is everywhere, and endemic to people feeling safely in the majority. And believe me it's ultimately hurtful to gays who face an often uphill battle just to fit in, no less come out to friends and family. In my life, I've met exactly ONE remarkable, heterosexual couple who always made sure that they avoided making statements like the above to their son, who they suspected from an early age might grow up to be gay (they were right.) Most people have probably never met any parents like that, and yet statistically I'm guessing about 10-20% of parents in the U.S. have a gay child (and yes, I believe we're born that way.)

I'm not asking Anne or any other people to walk on eggshells. I'm asking them to think a little bit first about how their speech might be more divisive than inclusive. Especially when addressing a large audience, 5-10% or which you can safely assume are gay, even if it's a group of conservatives! So I'm still scratching my head over what she meant in the first paragraph of today's article where it says, "It's hard to believe, but it's true: The Vatican denies that this (the clergy in the closet) is the problem (pedophilia)." What's hard to believe, exactly? And why?

Are people really that myopic and self-absorbed that they can't freaking READ the entire article before blasting away? A PRIEST dismissed the first two paragraphs of this piece as tripe, that the study conducted by the Roman Catholic Bishops was a cop out and little more than that.

My God the angst here is blinding at times.

I have to agree that it helps to read the whole thing and take it as a whole. I don't like the wording of the first paragraph either, this is true. Perhaps it was done in a hurry. Perhaps it would be "surprising" given statements in the past that seemed to indicate that the Vatican was inclined toward that first idea, and now says something else. I don't know.
I have read other articles by Anne Strieber on her page, which are definitely her writing and have to say that she does not come across as homophobic at all.
I'm not Catholic, nor do I "have the papers" in matters of psychology, so this might not hold much weight, but I do wonder if it has more to do with the priesthood drawing men who already have certain problems, rather than what went on (in seminaries or "society") after their decision to join. It seems likely to me that the groundwork for pedophilia was probably laid in most of these men some time before joining the priesthood. Considering that possibility probably would show up a need for those "substantive changes" though, and perhaps it's resistance to those that drive the way the studies are conducted.

The study concluded that neither the all-male celibate priesthood nor homosexuality are to blame.
I disagree. Almost all of the abuse involves homosexual priests hitting on underage teen boys. This is not pedophilia. It is a problem that can be partially corrected by allowing married men to become priests. The church is likely hesitant to kick out homosexual priests that have been accused of relations with teenage boys because there are not enough straight single men wanting to become priests. Are all homosexual priests abusers? Of course not. But almost all the abuser priests are homosexuals.

I too have posted links to articles and interviews for friends and several, who have their own UFO experiences, look the other way for similar reasons that Donna Duffy states. I subscribe because Dreamland has outstanding guest speakers and interviews. In a recent interview Ann stated she runs a science website. She's very likely the writer and editor in chief. As far as pedophilia among the Catholic clergy, the Vatican's study and the article posted here are both short-sighted. Catholic clery have a long, long history of sexual dysfunction and pathology. It goes back centuries, even before celibacy was mandated. Lucretia Borgia's plight is a good example. Her father was Pope Alexander VI. It got really gruesome in the Middle Ages after celibacy was mandated and the clergy entered into psychological marriages with Jesus. "Affective Meditation and the Invention of Medieval Compassion" by Sarah McNamer is a good book if you're interested in Catholic pathologies. I found this book when I innocently wondered about the origins of the bleeding heart of Jesus. It was invented by Medieval nuns who lovingly wrote about erotic meditations with Jesus, their orgasms, etc. Hildegard of Bingen was a 12th century nun who wrote about her orgasms. How experiences of this kind were achieved with meditation is a marvel of human psychology.

Regardless of who does the writing and editing of some of these articles, Ann always sound super sweet in her interviews.

donna-i know exatly what you're saying-even though this article isn't the greatest example of it-there is constant inaccuracy&bias-not just veiled homophobia(always prefaced by reminding us they have gay friends)-but very thinly veiled anti-semitism-i 'vefound myself thouroughly disillusioned by the "friendly" jew bashing going on here for awhile but-when david icke was touted as a great&wise man a few weeks ago-that drove the final nail in the coffin-oh&please stop trying to sell starfire tor to us-you should know your subscribers are intelligent,thinking people&mosat of us aren't buying any of the horseshit that comes out of that lunatic/charlatan's mouth-now having said all this-i still feel that whitley is a very special man with so much to offer us on the ufo front&i feel awful saying this but-even worse is the hurt in my heart when as a jew i feel attacked&blamed in a way that is positively medieval-but couched in new age touchyfeely david icke-ish nonsense

Hi Janet- your statements sent me to wikipedia to find the link between David Icke and antisemitism. Based on what I saw there, I think it's a pretty shaky link, but I'd be interested to know more if you feel it can be proven.

And for the record, I basically agree with you about Starfire Tor. What's really surprising though is that she is a person who, assuming she believes her own schtick, obviously thinks she's got this whole universe-time-space-and-reality thing figured out. And yet Whitley (and Anne), who repeatedly emphasize leaving these big questions open, seem to fall for her simplistic new age theories of "The Matrix" hook, line and sinker, and to endorse her completely! It seems most of their evidence for this is that bathroom incident at the magic club, which I find very unconvincing and not especially remarkable. That said, Whitley's experience on the streets of New York long before Communion, where he went back in time by a good century or so, is startling and compelling, mostly because I believe Whitley is an exceedingly honest man and I take him at his word. I don't need Starfire Tor's dubious theories to "solve" this mystery. Rather, upon rereading parts of The Key (new edition) last night on my Kindle, the Master of the Key puts it all in much more believable terms when he talked about how (and I'm going from memory here so hopefully I'm not butchering this) the radiant body can expand into ecstatic union with God and the universe, where we can be any place and any time and all is known. I think he said this is "ascension" that is available to anyone here and now. I imagine the more we're able to do this, the more slippery our "reality" can become, both in time and space.

I'm not an intense skeptic, and I'm willing to consider all ideas as possible. For example, I openly tell people that based on evidence I believe UFOs are real and that one of the best explanations for the history and evolution of mankind could very well include alien intervention. I don't care if some people react by thinking that makes me unworthy of their respect. I just want to know what's true, and my "beliefs" are really just deductions from the information I'm aware of. New information can bring new understandings, and it's important not to get stuck and invested of one way of seeing the universe. Someone like Ms. Tor and some of the others in the UC pantheon will get you stuck. Even Anne has very fixed and frequently expressed (at every opportunity during interviews it seems) theories and opinions on all things related to these mysteries, and quite clearly either accepts or rejects what others say based on whether or not they fit her model. Further, I'm still skeptical that parallel universes really exist, in fact I think it can lead us down the wrong path, but it's another concept the Striebers seem to believe in wholeheartedly. Interestingly, I'm pretty sure the MOTK never endorses or even mentions parallel universes AT ALL.

So I encourage people to stay open but to not abandon their own ability to discern truth from fiction by applying some degree of logic, rigor and insight, and not just believe everything presented on this site because it has the apparent endorsement of someone you respect and perhaps admire. Predictably, there is a cultish flavor to some portion of the UC subscriber fanbase, something I think the Striebers seem to actually encourage. Especially lately where Whitley has divided the world into those under mind control and those who aren't. With the very curious position that those who subscribe to UC are by definition NOT under mind control, so the undeniable corollary is that spending the money to subscribe separates you from the masses. Hmm.

Pedophilia is also a form of sexual orientation, though considered to be pathologic in our culture, which many of us do not say regarding homosexuality. The Church is to blame for becoming a magnet for pedophiles- the fact that these crimes have been hidden for so long amounts to putting a sign in front of the seminaries saying "Pedophiles Welcome." Like other decaying organizations, they look the other way if necessary for recruiting. Catholic believers are at fault for continuing to support the Church even when these things are known. If you've never been to the Vatican you owe it to yourself to go there some day and see what it really means to concentrate wealth from millions and billions of members. I agree with others that the writer is guilty of blurring the difference between homosexuals and pedophiles. Some pedophiles also like little girls. The PR may say celibate, but it really means unmarried. Go back through history and you will find stories of Popes who kept concubines and prostitutes.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now