PDA

View Full Version : This just in: Catholic Priests are human


Pages : [1] 2

remilard
04-09-2010, 09:54 AM
Turns out Catholic priests abuse children at the same rate as the general population and abuse is also common among leaders from other religions/denominations. Hmmm


The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

SUBSCRIBE Click Here to subscribe to NEWSWEEK and save up to 88% >>
Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+newsweek/TopNews+(UPDATED+-+Newsweek+Top+Stories)

oirg
04-09-2010, 09:56 AM
Turns out Catholic priests abuse children at the same rate as the general population and abuse is also common among leaders from other religions/denominations. Hmmm

Another "everybody else does it" excuse.

remilard
04-09-2010, 09:57 AM
Not an excuse, more of a "glass houses" thing.

Loner
04-09-2010, 09:58 AM
Nice strawman. The problem is their REACTION to the abuse. And frankly, the way the Church has behaved, who would trust their data?

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:00 AM
not that I believe the numbers presented are true, but even if they were, other molesters aren't aided and assisted by their superiors/peers to evade justice.

oh, and this little gem:
and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own

yeah, let's trust the liars to give us honest answers.

remilard
04-09-2010, 10:03 AM
Nice strawman. The problem is their REACTION to the abuse. And frankly, the way the Church has behaved, who would trust their data?

That may be a problem, but plenty of people blame the abuse on the celibacy vow or other features of The Church. So that would be another alleged problem that has no basis in reality.

You can join The President in the "I don't know what a strawman is" club.

Note that I never said that Cardinals, Bishops or the Pope are human.

remilard
04-09-2010, 10:03 AM
not that I believe the numbers presented are true, but even if they were, other molesters aren't aided and assisted by their superiors/peers to evade justice.

oh, and this little gem:


yeah, let's trust the liars to give us honest answers.


If the word "molesters" wasn't in this post, it could be about insurance companies.

ETA: Actually, it could still be about insurance companies.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 10:07 AM
other molesters aren't aided and assisted by their superiors/peers to evade justice.Link?

remilard
04-09-2010, 10:08 AM
Link?

Well we know that only Catholics cover up abuse, right?

Well then via proof by abduction it follows that other religions don't.

QED*

*Note: Hugh Jass probably has a slightly less sophisticated argument, but it is just as true.

Loner
04-09-2010, 10:09 AM
If the word "molesters" wasn't in this post, it could be about insurance companies.

ETA: Actually, it could still be about insurance companies.

Except insurance companies actually get audited once in a while.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 10:13 AM
Well we know that only Catholics cover up abuse, right?

Well then via proof by abduction it follows that other religions don't.

QED*

*Note: Hugh Jass probably has a slightly less sophisticated argument, but it is just as true.Right!
According to the Scouts federal tax returns, payments to just one law firm in Miami working on abuse cases for the BSA totaled more than one-half million dollars; the BSA insurance reserve, from which the damages are paid, stood at $61.9 million.[28]

The actual payment total, said the Washington Times in 1991, is probably far higher because the Scouts sometimes agree to pay damages only if the payments are kept secret.Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting_sex_abuse_cases)The Boy Scouts of America has long kept an extensive archive of secret documents that chronicle the sexual abuse of young boys by Scout leaders over the years.Link (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lawsuit_boy_scouts_covered_up_sex_rBjXDlRvOXHpNUJX SC8SNL#ixzz0kbmhwZtU)
etc.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:36 AM
ok, fine, you got me. The Boys Scouts is a bad organization, too. Anyone else want to be considered a bad organization!?!??!

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Molesting kids: it's only human. Everyone does it.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:42 AM
I bet remilard and friends would be taking a different stance if the story was about a lesbian mom who ran a day care and got caught molesting the kids. Or if an atheist got caught with child pron, they'd be all like "fry 'em" and we wouldn't be hearing this "it's only human" crap.

Louis Rich
04-09-2010, 10:44 AM
Molesting kids: it's only human. Everyone does it.
This should be the thread title.

Lucy
04-09-2010, 10:46 AM
I'm pretty sure that all organizations where men have a lot of unsupervised contact with children in small groups or individually has some issues with child abuse. And I'm also pretty sure that most of them cover it up, because that's the human thing to do. I further suspect that in most cases the victim and his family would prefer the issue be kept confidential. (Not all, certainly, but most.)

The major problem as I see it is that the Catholic Church knew it had a problem and did very little if anything to protect children from men who were known or suspected child abusers. Really, if the Church had had a policy or removing suspected abusers from pastoral duties, and kept them away from children - EVEN IF IT HAD COVERED UP THE CASES IT FOUND, and continued to pay the priests for their now-clerical/administrative duties, I don't think we'd see the sort of scandal and rage that we see today.

Lucy
04-09-2010, 10:48 AM
Molesting kids: it's only human. Everyone does it.Naw, a small minority of men and a tiny minority of women do it. But almost everyone covers up embarassing stuff about organizations and people they care about. That's only human.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Naw, a small minority of men and a tiny minority of women do it. But almost everyone covers up embarassing stuff about organizations and people they care about. That's only human.

I was being sarcastic and was too lazy to use use red font.

Keep It Real, Yo
04-09-2010, 10:49 AM
Turns out Catholic priests abuse children at the same rate as the general population and abuse is also common among leaders from other religions/denominations. Hmmm




http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+newsweek/TopNews+(UPDATED+-+Newsweek+Top+Stories)

True, but part of the criticism stems from the whole thingy about them being God's church. If they are God's church, shouldn't their priests maybe be a lil' less frequent than the general pop at committing egregious sins?

remilard
04-09-2010, 10:51 AM
I bet remilard and friends would be taking a different stance if the story was about a lesbian mom who ran a day care and got caught molesting the kids. Or if an atheist got caught with child pron, they'd be all like "fry 'em" and we wouldn't be hearing this "it's only human" crap.

I'm not religious.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:54 AM
I'm not religious.

ok. But you're on the side where all the religious people hang out and you want to be buddies with them.

Louis Rich
04-09-2010, 10:56 AM
I was being sarcastic and was too lazy to use use red font.
Good sarcasm doesn't require red.

SamTheEagle
04-09-2010, 10:57 AM
True, but part of the criticism stems from the whole thingy about them being God's church. If they are God's church, shouldn't their priests maybe be a lil' less frequent than the general pop at committing egregious sins?

Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

:judge:

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 10:58 AM
Good sarcasm doesn't require red.

see, that's how I feel about it, too.

Lucy
04-09-2010, 10:58 AM
I was being sarcastic and was too lazy to use use red font.Yeah, but it was a good lead-in to my point about the cover-up.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 11:13 AM
I'm not convinced that the cover-up aspect of this story is that far out of proportion with the general population either, especially in the last few decades. Closeting (hampering?) one's dirty laundry is hardly unique to this group.

I think a big problem is also the presumption, on the part of the church's critics, of an understanding on the church's part of the slim hopes of rehabilitating an offender. The idea that confession and penance etc. is a chance for renewal may be naive when it comes to certain transgressions, but it is reasonable regarding others, and mistakenly applying this concept to this particular sin can't becalled evil imo iof we are talking about the 60's or 70's. We still have ideological divides in the US when it comes to recidivism, regarding various criminal behaviors.

And of course, what does one do when it is one person's word against another's? When the victim him- or herself has not gone to the authorities? I can see arguing for this course of action or that, but it is hardly cut and dry.

Lucy
04-09-2010, 11:19 AM
. . . I think a big problem is also the presumption, on the part of the church's critics, of an understanding on the church's part of the slim hopes of rehabilitating an offender. The idea that confession and penance etc. is a chance for renewal may be naive when it comes to certain transgressions, but it is reasonable regarding others, and mistakenly applying this concept to this particular sin can't becalled evil imo iof we are talking about the 60's or 70's. We still have ideological divides in the US when it comes to recidivism, regarding various criminal behaviors. . .
:iatp: That was my first reaction to the scandal. "This is a group that fervently believes in the power of grace and redemption. They sent the priests to psychologists and to pastoral counselors. They are guilty of too much hope and faith."

I still think they had enough evidence that they should have done more to protect future victims of guilty priests. But I do think a lot of their sins were prompted by their faith rather than being in opposition to their faith.

remilard
04-09-2010, 12:09 PM
ok. But you're on the side where all the religious people hang out and you want to be buddies with them.

No, I would say there are a lot of religious people that are D supporters and lots of Catholics that supported Obama.

If you think all the religious people on the right and non-religious on the left, you are living in a different world than I am.

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 12:27 PM
I once saw this documentary or something and they said human history is basically the story of child abuse. They made it seem like a common thing in the past and present and had some examples of how it shaped societies which I don't remember the details. it certainly seems to be a common occurrence if I'm to believe the newspapers.

Who are these people that are attracted to children anyway? I've never had even the slightest urge to get physical with a kid. It's really a mystery to me why anyone would but apparently lots of people do. :-?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 12:36 PM
Who are these people that are attracted to children anyway? I've never had even the slightest urge to get physical with a kid. It's really a mystery to me why anyone would but apparently lots of people do. :-?

Are your own urges that much more helpful to you? Lots of people are plagued by urges that are destructive to themselves, to their lives, or destructive to someone else. Pedophelia is just a sad variant that by definition is illegal to fulfill. I thank the heavens that I don't have to live with a curse like that.

(I'm not saying this as a criticism of you)

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 12:40 PM
I once saw this documentary or something and they said human history is basically the story of child abuse. They made it seem like a common thing in the past and present and had some examples of how it shaped societies which I don't remember the details. it certainly seems to be a common occurrence if I'm to believe the newspapers.

Who are these people that are attracted to children anyway? I've never had even the slightest urge to get physical with a kid. It's really a mystery to me why anyone would but apparently lots of people do. :-?
It's shocking how many abusers are out there and who they are. The scariest thing is that the worst child abusers are the most loved among us. I've seen cases where parents protect their child's abuser. These things sneak by us either because we can't fathom them so deny their existence, or we trust these people because they seem worthy of our trust. Child sex abuse exists in every socio-economic and racial class.

What made the catholic church scandal worse than so many others is the amount of access they had to children because families trusted them. And then the church had no regard for the victims and protected the priests instead. Our current pope may be the most evil in this regard. His quotes during easter services are horrendous, blaming the victim, protecting the church, no apology! This same pope presided over the sex abuse scandals before he became the pope. He hasn't learned much from his experience. Good luck to the catholic church keeping its pews full. This ex-catholic stopped going after the first scandals.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 12:44 PM
My radio news kept reporting that the Pope didn't comment during Easter services (which I would have thought of as inappropriate anyway). Some other Vatican official said some controversial stuff to the press, from what I understood.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 12:51 PM
My radio news kept reporting that the Pope didn't comment during Easter services (which I would have thought of as inappropriate anyway). Some other Vatican official said some controversial stuff to the press, from what I understood.
You're right. It was palm sunday mass (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/pope-condemns-critics-catholic-sexual-abuse).


The pope said that faith in God helped lead one "towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion".
He also spoke of how man can sometimes "fall to the lowest, vulgar levels" and "sink into the swamp of sin and dishonesty".

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 12:52 PM
I bet these same church supporters would be in a hizzy if some lesbian mom abused some kids or if an atheist looked at kiddie pron. There wouldn't be this sudden "understanding" of how "natural it is to want to cover up a boo-boo". These same people would be screaming for blood.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 12:54 PM
And of course, what does one do when it is one person's word against another's? When the victim him- or herself has not gone to the authorities? I can see arguing for this course of action or that, but it is hardly cut and dry.
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 12:54 PM
Are your own urges that much more helpful to you? Lots of people are plagued by urges that are destructive to themselves, to their lives, or destructive to someone else. Pedophelia is just a sad variant that by definition is illegal to fulfill. I thank the heavens that I don't have to live with a curse like that.

(I'm not saying this as a criticism of you)I didn't take anything you said as a criticism. Possibly because I didn't really understand it. Please explain.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 12:54 PM
I bet these same church supporters would be in a hizzy if some lesbian mom abused some kids or if an atheist looked at kiddie pron. There wouldn't be this sudden "understanding" of how "natural it is to want to cover up a boo-boo". These same people would be screaming for blood.
:iatp:

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 12:55 PM
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?

Isn't it adults that are claiming things happened to them as children for the most part?

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 12:57 PM
I bet these same church supporters would be in a hizzy if some lesbian mom abused some kids or if an atheist looked at kiddie pron. There wouldn't be this sudden "understanding" of how "natural it is to want to cover up a boo-boo". These same people would be screaming for blood.What argument are you supporting with this post?

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 12:58 PM
What argument are you supporting with this post?

not an argument, an observation.

MountainHawk
04-09-2010, 01:00 PM
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?
It is not at all rare for a parent to coach their kids into thinking thinking they were abused so they can score in the lawsuit.

Loner
04-09-2010, 01:03 PM
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?

To play devil's advocate here, we really have no way of knowing how rare it is that a child makes this stuff up. I belelive shame keeps a lot of genuine victims from coming forward, as well as suppressing the level of false claims, but I don't doubt that there are SOME people who would make a false claim.

Lucy
04-09-2010, 01:07 PM
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?
I know one case of an adult who "recovered" memories about childhood sexual abuse which I believe to be false. Her mom claims that the man in question was never alone with her when she was the age she claims the event happened. The man is sexually agressive in a way that makes women uncomfortable so it's easy to see how the woman might have mentally moved that discomfort to an earlier age. The man in question came on the the mom when she was a teen, leading the mom to ask her parents to help her avoid him - so the mom actually made a point of keeping her daughter away from him, it wasn't just a casual belief on her part.

In short, I think that some victim's claims are not true.

Fish Actuary
04-09-2010, 01:21 PM
Turns out Catholic priests abuse children at the same rate as the general population and abuse is also common among leaders from other religions/denominations. Hmmm




http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+newsweek/TopNews+(UPDATED+-+Newsweek+Top+Stories)

I'm not sure that is the major complaint. I think the major complaint is that when the bishops found out that one of their priests was abusing a kid, they paid some hush money or forced the victims to shut up or face spending eternity in hell and moved the priest somewhere else where they were free to abuse more kids. If someone in the general public gets caught abusing kids, they get arrested and often get sent to prison.

remilard
04-09-2010, 01:33 PM
I'm not sure that is the major complaint. I think the major complaint is that when the bishops found out that one of their priests was abusing a kid, they paid some hush money or forced the victims to shut up or face spending eternity in hell and moved the priest somewhere else where they were free to abuse more kids. If someone in the general public gets caught abusing kids, they get arrested and often get sent to prison.

As others have pointed out, settlements and cover-ups are not at all limited to the Catholic Church (not offering that as a defense, just an objection to the idea that something particularly unique is going on).

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 01:52 PM
not an argument, an observation.Of course they would be upset at those events, as they were upset with the events that we're discussing. Trying to figure what your point was is....They'd also be upset if they lost a 20, so what?

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 02:00 PM
Of course they would be upset at those events, as they were upset with the events that we're discussing. Trying to figure what your point was is....They'd also be upset if they lost a 20, so what?

ok, so they would be upset the situations I presented happened as well. But the reaction would be like "we need to punish them to the fullest extent of the law", not "well, no one's perfect, so let's move beyond this and let's continue to support the people who hurt us"

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 02:03 PM
Not that I agree with anything you said, but would you expect a different reaction from John Doe, if he were to find out some stranger robbed a bank, vs if his brother robbed a bank?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 02:03 PM
As others have pointed out, settlements and cover-ups are not at all limited to the Catholic Church (not offering that as a defense, just an objection to the idea that something particularly unique is going on).

There's nothing unique about a religion that claims 1/6 of the world's population being involved in something like this?

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 02:05 PM
There's nothing unique about a religion that claims 1/6 of the world's population being involved in something like this?No one said the group isn't unique, how do you feel that it's unique?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 02:17 PM
No one said the group isn't unique, how do you feel that it's unique?

The argument seems to be "other groups have child molesters too, there's nothing unique about the Catholic Church having them". What is unique is that it's a religion, a religion that claims to be the original church founded by the son of god, and has over a billion members, 2nd largest in the world. An organization of that size, and one that is making a claim to religious and moral superiority, is obviously going to get greater scrutiny when the highest levels of leadership are involved in covering up the sexual abuse of children.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 02:24 PM
The argument seems to be "other groups have child molesters too, there's nothing unique about the Catholic Church having them".Yep, that's pretty much what unique means.What is unique is that it's a religion, a religion that claims to be the original church founded by the son of god, and has over a billion members, 2nd largest in the world.
We agree that the religion itself is unique An organization of that size, and one that is making a claim to religious and moral superiority, is obviously going to get greater scrutiny when the highest levels of leadership are involved in covering up the sexual abuse of children.And that's exactly what has happened. So....now what?

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 02:28 PM
Yep, that's pretty much what unique means.
We agree that the religion itself is unique And that's exactly what has happened. So....now what?

People realize that priests are just regular humans and prone to the same child molesting urges that the rest of society seems to have and they are not messengers of God and the Church ceases to exist? :shrug:

Listeria
04-09-2010, 02:30 PM
It is rare that a child makes this stuff up. You can't be suggesting that there is doubt about the victim's claims, can you?
That is exactly what I am suggesting. I am 100% sure that the majority of the claims are true. I am just as sure that some accusations are false, and that some claims of being damaged by the experience are exaggerated or just mistaken as to where a person's messed-up-ness originated.


As Lucy has already ninja'd me, falsely "recovered" memories are a real phenomenon. I know of no cases in which allegations regarding a priest were proven false off the top of my head, but recent history is crawling with cases of false "recovered" memories about other things: sexual abuse in daycare, incest, Holocaust experiences, Satanic ritual abuse, including cases in which people were falsely convicted of these things.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 02:34 PM
The argument seems to be "other groups have child molesters too, there's nothing unique about the Catholic Church having them". What is unique is that it's a religion, a religion that claims to be the original church founded by the son of god, and has over a billion members, 2nd largest in the world. An organization of that size, and one that is making a claim to religious and moral superiority, is obviously going to get greater scrutiny when the highest levels of leadership are involved in covering up the sexual abuse of children.
What religion doesn't purport to have the best answer regarding truth, morality, etc...??? Why would I be interested in any world view that didn't offer me the best answers, or claimed that it didn't necessarily/especially?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 02:37 PM
I didn't take anything you said as a criticism. Possibly because I didn't really understand it. Please explain.

You were saying you didn't understand being sexually attracted to children. I was basically adding that it seems to me like a tragic and torturous burden to be plagued with.

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 02:38 PM
You were saying you didn't understand being sexually attracted to children. I was basically adding that it seems to me like a tragic and torturous burden to be plagued with.Oh. OK. I thought there was more to it.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 02:41 PM
Not that I agree with anything you said, but would you expect a different reaction from John Doe, if he were to find out some stranger robbed a bank, vs if his brother robbed a bank?

robbing a bank, no fatalities <> child molesting and conspiracy to cover it up.

sure, I'd be more disappointed that my brother did something wrong than some random stranger. What's your point?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 02:49 PM
HJ, his point is that MOST people tend to try to deal with their loved one's transgressions, or those of a member of their clan, PRIVATELY, out of protectiveness of the transgressor, and out of the shame that it will bring to themselves and their clan. I think the analogy is reasonable.

ShebaPoe
04-09-2010, 03:10 PM
yeah, let's trust the liars to give us honest answers.

No lover of the catholic church here, but I would love to see you and many Americans apply this same skepticism to every form of authority.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 03:15 PM
And that's exactly what has happened. So....now what?

:shrug:

All I'm saying is that the OP and some of the other posts in this thread are wrong, there is something unique about the Catholic church that justifies the additional criticism and scrutiny they've received.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 03:18 PM
To play devil's advocate here, we really have no way of knowing how rare it is that a child makes this stuff up. I belelive shame keeps a lot of genuine victims from coming forward, as well as suppressing the level of false claims, but I don't doubt that there are SOME people who would make a false claim.
Kids hardly ever make this stuff up. They should not have knowledge of some of the things that come out through disclosure. Teens and adults are a different matter.

remilard
04-09-2010, 03:19 PM
The argument seems to be "other groups have child molesters too, there's nothing unique about the Catholic Church having them". What is unique is that it's a religion, a religion that claims to be the original church founded by the son of god, and has over a billion members, 2nd largest in the world. An organization of that size, and one that is making a claim to religious and moral superiority, is obviously going to get greater scrutiny when the highest levels of leadership are involved in covering up the sexual abuse of children.

But sexual abuse of children is a feature of all large religious groups, indeed any large group. It appears as though people have flaws, some of those flaws prompt them to behave in ways that are unacceptable (at least in some moral circles), and Catholic priests are not less flawed than the rest of us (did they claim to be?).

Child abuse should be condemned, both when Catholic priests and when other people do it. Cover ups of child abuse should be similarly condemned.

It is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous to pretend like the problem is unique to the Catholic church when in fact the problem (both abuse and coverups) are present in essentially any large group that you might define based on any characteristic meaningful or arbitrary.

If you will allow me to be morally imperialist for a moment, I think it is clear that the treatment of women in Islam is (while not universal, I am not an idiot) more widespread and more tolerated than child abuse in Catholicism probably by several orders of magnitude. Catholicism can be criticized on moral grounds, but it is as easy to criticize any of the other major religions.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 03:21 PM
No lover of the catholic church here, but I would love to see you and many Americans apply this same skepticism to every form of authority.

we need to add this post to General Apapthy's thread about your condescending attitude.

What makes you think I am not skeptical of every form of authority? I'm probably the most skeptical person on this board.

Hugh Jass
04-09-2010, 03:24 PM
HJ, his point is that MOST people tend to try to deal with their loved one's transgressions, or those of a member of their clan, PRIVATELY, out of protectiveness of the transgressor, and out of the shame that it will bring to themselves and their clan. I think the analogy is reasonable.

he's trying to make it seem like that's an ok thing. Yeah, sure, if my brother robbed a bank I sure wouldn't go around bragging about it. But it's public record, and anyone can see it if they want to. I would not (and probably couldn't if I wanted to) try to keep my brother's crime from the public. The CC abused it's power in this regard, because they wield more power than you or I do in getting things covered up that they want covered up.
and FWIW, I wouldn't be ashamed if my brother robbed a bank. That's his transgression, not mine. Why would I feel ashamed because of something my brother did?

ShebaPoe
04-09-2010, 03:25 PM
we need to add this post to General Apapthy's thread about your condescending attitude.

What makes you think I am not skeptical of every form of authority? I'm probably the most skeptical person on this board.

Rickson is the most skeptical of authority, I think.

But, keep up the good work then.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 03:26 PM
I know one case of an adult who "recovered" memories about childhood sexual abuse which I believe to be false. Her mom claims that the man in question was never alone with her when she was the age she claims the event happened. The man is sexually agressive in a way that makes women uncomfortable so it's easy to see how the woman might have mentally moved that discomfort to an earlier age. The man in question came on the the mom when she was a teen, leading the mom to ask her parents to help her avoid him - so the mom actually made a point of keeping her daughter away from him, it wasn't just a casual belief on her part.

In short, I think that some victim's claims are not true.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to sexually abuse a child. It isn't always the picture in our minds. Not sure if you were following the case in Boston. The guy was abusing a child on a bus filled with kids.

It's dangerous to presume there isn't truth to a victim's accusation. The church did that for decades. Few people have the motivation to put forth a false claim.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 03:26 PM
we need to add this post to General Apapthy's thread about your condescending attitude.

What makes you think I am not skeptical of every form of authority? I'm probably the most skeptical person on this board.
Don't worry, he'll be posting (incorrectly) the opposite point of view in half a year or so, and telling some person with his present point of view that they are an idiot.

Louis Rich
04-09-2010, 03:27 PM
It is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous to pretend like the problem is unique to the Catholic church when in fact the problem (both abuse and coverups) are present in essentially any large group that you might define based on any characteristic meaningful or arbitrary.

If you will allow me to be morally imperialist for a moment, I think it is clear that the treatment of women in Islam is (while not universal, I am not an idiot) more widespread and more tolerated than child abuse in Catholicism probably by several orders of magnitude. Catholicism can be criticized on moral grounds, but it is as easy to criticize any of the other major religions.
You really know how to stir a pot.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 03:29 PM
Kids hardly ever make this stuff up. They should not have knowledge of some of the things that come out through disclosure. Teens and adults are a different matter.
Kids go along when adults coach them, often with false "memories" being eventually sincerely "remembered" by them. Again, see the various daycare cases in the US.

Additionally, many allegations are coming from adults, even if the allegations are about that adult's childhood experiences, actual or alleged.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 03:35 PM
he's trying to make it seem like that's an ok thing. Yeah, sure, if my brother robbed a bank I sure wouldn't go around bragging about it. But it's public record, and anyone can see it if they want to. I would not (and probably couldn't if I wanted to) try to keep my brother's crime from the public. The CC abused it's power in this regard, because they wield more power than you or I do in getting things covered up that they want covered up.
and FWIW, I wouldn't be ashamed if my brother robbed a bank. That's his transgression, not mine. Why would I feel ashamed because of something my brother did?
Wait. If you discovered your brother had robbed a bank, but this was not public information, would you go report him?

What if this were simply alleged about him by someone whose credibility you were not sure of at all? What is your obligation? What if he tells you he didn't do this?

What if you have come to believe that he did do this? How would you proceed?

I know how people TEND TO proceed.

The Drunken Actuary
04-09-2010, 03:36 PM
But sexual abuse of children is a feature of all large religious groups, indeed any large group. It appears as though people have flaws, some of those flaws prompt them to behave in ways that are unacceptable (at least in some moral circles), and Catholic priests are not less flawed than the rest of us (did they claim to be?).

Child abuse should be condemned, both when Catholic priests and when other people do it. Cover ups of child abuse should be similarly condemned.
It is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous to pretend like the problem is unique to the Catholic church when in fact the problem (both abuse and coverups) are present in essentially any large group that you might define based on any characteristic meaningful or arbitrary.

If you will allow me to be morally imperialist for a moment, I think it is clear that the treatment of women in Islam is (while not universal, I am not an idiot) more widespread and more tolerated than child abuse in Catholicism probably by several orders of magnitude. Catholicism can be criticized on moral grounds, but it is as easy to criticize any of the other major religions.Hmm. Yet your thread title seems to imply that it's ok, priests are human like other child molesters so don't condemn them. If your point was that condemnation of the church's child abuse and coverups are being properly condemned but other instances are not, you would have presented some other groups' history and coverup and asked us to condemn them.

But you knew that cuz you're just trolling anyway.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 03:48 PM
I have read plenty of stuff (not necessarily in AO) implying that the Church/Vatican is unusual in this regard. I don't know about remilard and other topics, but I see sincere opinion here rather than trolling.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 03:53 PM
But sexual abuse of children is a feature of all large religious groups, indeed any large group. It appears as though people have flaws, some of those flaws prompt them to behave in ways that are unacceptable (at least in some moral circles), and Catholic priests are not less flawed than the rest of us (did they claim to be?).


Leadership in the Catholic church (or any church) ought to be held to a higher standard than some random large group. Is your hypothetical "any large group" claiming to be a founded by god himself, and counts 1/6 of the world population as it's membership? Show me any other religion that had its leadership covering up child abuse as frequently and at as high levels as the Catholic church and I will condemn them just as vigorously.

It is at best unproductive and at worst dangerous to pretend like the problem is unique to the Catholic church

Who is doing that?

the problem (both abuse and coverups) are present in essentially any large group that you might define based on any characteristic meaningful or arbitrary

So a religion should be held to the same standards as "random large group of arbitrary people"? Interesting


I think it is clear that the treatment of women in Islam is (while not universal, I am not an idiot) more widespread and more tolerated than child abuse in Catholicism probably by several orders of magnitude. Catholicism can be criticized on moral grounds, but it is as easy to criticize any of the other major religions.

Well call me when someone here starts a thread titled "This just in: Muslims are human" trying to downplay the significance of Islamic mistreatment of women.

BigBen
04-09-2010, 04:00 PM
Leadership in the Catholic church (or any church) ought to be held to a higher standard than some random large group. Is your hypothetical "any large group" claiming to be a founded by god himself, and counts 1/6 of the world population as it's membership? Show me any other religion that had its leadership covering up child abuse as frequently and at as high levels as the Catholic church and I will condemn them just as vigorously.


Just anecdotally, not sure if this is a widespread thing, but I have a religious Jewish friend who attended a rabbinical boarding school in upstate NY in his middle to high school years. He says that the Rabbis who taught at the school would regularly strike the kids for misbehaving, usually with the back of a hand to the face. He also told me that the first time they tried to hit him, he blocked it with his arm, and they never tried to hit him again after that. He also says that if his parents knew about the type of corporal punishment he and his classmates were enduring, they would have pulled him out of the school. He eventually got expelled, anyways, I think it was for drinking or smoking pot.

Anyways, my point is, I wouldn't be surprised if this type of thing (and the complicity/cover-up) exists in most of the fundamentalist/extremist sects of any religion.

Which brings me back to my ultimate conclusion (for like, everything), that the problem is not religion, but extremism and fundamentalism applied to religion.

Fish Actuary
04-09-2010, 04:02 PM
As others have pointed out, settlements and cover-ups are not at all limited to the Catholic Church (not offering that as a defense, just an objection to the idea that something particularly unique is going on).

That's true. However, I think the difference is that the church has been covering up or paying off people for far more repeat offenders than other organizations. With boy scouts/teachers, the local organization finds out about someone and they generally get rid of the abuser and maybe pay a few people off to keep quiet. With the church, they paid off or ordered a bunch of people to keep them quiet and move the priest somewhere new.

The other problem faced by the Catholic Church is that it is a massive, multi-national organization and so it gets a lot more cumulative blame than other organizations. As a couple of examples...
When a teacher abuses someone, it's an individual district issue rather than a problem with all school districts as the districts are more or less independent of one another. If a boy scout leader abuses someone it is a matter for a local group or perhaps the national organization, but it doesn't have a lot of carry over to national boy scout organizations in other countries. If a Catholic priest abuses someone, there are more repercussions for the Catholic Church because the Church in Minnesota is under the same management as the one in Northern Ireland or rural India.

Fish Actuary
04-09-2010, 04:08 PM
Just anecdotally, not sure if this is a widespread thing, but I have a religious Jewish friend who attended a rabbinical boarding school in upstate NY in his middle to high school years. He says that the Rabbis who taught at the school would regularly strike the kids for misbehaving, usually with the back of a hand to the face. He also told me that the first time they tried to hit him, he blocked it with his arm, and they never tried to hit him again after that. He also says that if his parents knew about the type of corporal punishment he and his classmates were enduring, they would have pulled him out of the school. He eventually got expelled, anyways, I think it was for drinking or smoking pot.

Anyways, my point is, I wouldn't be surprised if this type of thing (and the complicity/cover-up) exists in most of the fundamentalist/extremist sects of any religion.

Which brings me back to my ultimate conclusion (for like, everything), that the problem is not religion, but extremism and fundamentalism applied to religion.

This is one area where I have a bit of sympathy for the church. The hitting kids for misbehaving or thinking of misbehaving was an accepted norm up until relatively recently. In parts of the U.S. it's still an allowable means of punishment in certain states, there was a recent example with some school's prom. I know that my parents both went to schools where teacher's were allowed to use the strap on students

Also, to be clear, I don't think the pope needs to take responsibility for much of the abuse that happened before he had any power to deal with it (e.g. much of the stuff that happened before some point in the 70s). On the other hand, once he was in power, it seems like he could have been far more aggressive in dealing with priests who'd abused kids in the past or even currently (with currently being back in the 80s or 90s and he had the position of being in charge on that issue).

Barbara
04-09-2010, 04:11 PM
Wait. If you discovered your brother had robbed a bank, but this was not public information, would you go report him?


There's a difference between failing to report, and giving him an opportunity to do it again. If you were the bank president, and you discovered your bother, a bank employee, was robbing the bank, it would be understandable if you wanted to deal with it quietly -- just fire him and not make a big deal about it and hope no one asks too many questions. Maybe that's not the way your board of directors would like you to handle it, but the motivation is understandable.

But, if would be much less understandable, and more significant dereliction of duty, if, instead of firing him, you just moved him to a similar position in another branch of the bank, thereby providing him with an opportunity to repeat his crime.

I think that's why there's so much anger against the church. It isn't just that children were abused (which is awful), or that the church tried to minimize the bad publicity about the abuse (understandable). It's that the abusing priests were just sent to another parish and provided with an opportunity to repeat the abuse. The church hierarchy showed little concern for the well being of its smallest and weakest parishioners.

I don't think they can possibly justify that. It's easy to say "there were some bad priests who abused children and we feel terrible about that". It's much harder to say "we take responsibility for allowing this to continue".

They need to say the latter, and to take some very visible steps to show their pentinence. I don't know what those steps are -- firing a lot of bishops, having the pope step down, or ??? but they need to find something that will restore the membership's confidence in the church leaders' ability and willingness to do the right thing.

Fish Actuary
04-09-2010, 04:13 PM
Kids go along when adults coach them, often with false "memories" being eventually sincerely "remembered" by them. Again, see the various daycare cases in the US.

Additionally, many allegations are coming from adults, even if the allegations are about that adult's childhood experiences, actual or alleged.

Linked (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017) is a lengthy article on priests abusing kids in Northern Alaska. There kids faced the opposite problem...


...
When Boudreau was a child, the villages of Northwest Alaska were only accessible by plane, boat, or dog sled. Many still are. For the most part, they didn't have public schools, cops, or telephones. Many of the houses were one room and lacked food and consistent heat in the below-zero weather. "The perps would soften up their victims with food and warmth," Wall says, "because that's what the kids didn't have. 'It was always warmer in the rectory,' they say. 'There was always food in the rectory. There was always candy.'"

In those villages, the priests had unusual authority. "In the village, our elders loved the church and the priests so much,"Boudreau says. "They were like honored guests in our land. The priest had the utmost power, power that historically the village shaman would have had." If children complained about the priests, it was tantamount to complaining about the village shaman. "I've talked to hundreds of victims in Alaska," Boudreau says, "and many were physically hurt by parents for speaking about this."

The priests came to occupy the role of shamans by a weird confluence of history and microbiology. In the early 1900s, a Spanish-influenza epidemic ripped through Northwest Alaska, sometimes killing entire villages. They called it "the Big Sickness" or "the Big Death."
...

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 04:32 PM
Show me any other religion that had its leadership covering up child abuse as frequently and at as high levels as the Catholic church and I will condemn them just as vigorously.There are no other religions on earth with nearly as much membership, and a single hierarchy. Islam, Protestants and other major religions have sects and fractions and operate as separate organizations, but are lumped under the same umbrella. Really the organizations with leadership responsible for as many members are the governments of India and China. Want to talk about the corruption of governments?

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 04:34 PM
Linked (http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017) is a lengthy article on priests abusing kids in Northern Alaska. There kids faced the opposite problem...So we have an example of bad parenting... thanks for your contribution.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 04:37 PM
There's a difference between failing to report, and giving him an opportunity to do it again. If you were the bank president, and you discovered your bother, a bank employee, was robbing the bank, it would be understandable if you wanted to deal with it quietly -- just fire him and not make a big deal about it and hope no one asks too many questions. Maybe that's not the way your board of directors would like you to handle it, but the motivation is understandable.

But, if would be much less understandable, and more significant dereliction of duty, if, instead of firing him, you just moved him to a similar position in another branch of the bank, thereby providing him with an opportunity to repeat his crime.

I think that's why there's so much anger against the church. It isn't just that children were abused (which is awful), or that the church tried to minimize the bad publicity about the abuse (understandable). It's that the abusing priests were just sent to another parish and provided with an opportunity to repeat the abuse. The church hierarchy showed little concern for the well being of its smallest and weakest parishioners.

I don't think they can possibly justify that. It's easy to say "there were some bad priests who abused children and we feel terrible about that". It's much harder to say "we take responsibility for allowing this to continue".

They need to say the latter, and to take some very visible steps to show their pentinence. I don't know what those steps are -- firing a lot of bishops, having the pope step down, or ??? but they need to find something that will restore the membership's confidence in the church leaders' ability and willingness to do the right thing.I don't think anyone disagrees with what you're saying. All we're saying is you don't have to look far to find examples of people these bank CEOs moving their brother to another area, even when it's clearly the wrong thing to do. Of parents enabling their drug abusing children, of people basically giving the benefit of the doubt to loved ones, not reporting them, or preventing them from hurting themselves or others, because they thought they could help them change.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 04:40 PM
There are no other religions on earth with nearly as much membership, and a single hierarchy. Islam, Protestants and other major religions have sects and fractions and operate as separate organizations, but are lumped under the same umbrella.

That's exactly my point. remilard and others are making this out to be an anti-Catholic thing, and ignoring the unique situation of the church and their leadership.

Really the organizations with leadership responsible for as many members are the governments of India and China. Want to talk about the corruption of governments?

Not particularly. But if members of the Chinese gov't were molesting kids and having it covered up and ignored by the highest levels of gov't, I would level the same criticism at them, and it would have nothing to do with any anti-Chinese bias.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 04:44 PM
They've done much worse.

Barbara
04-09-2010, 04:47 PM
I don't think anyone disagrees with what you're saying.

I think lots of people disagree. The main defenders of the Church all seem to be saying "other people abuse children, why pick on us?".

I think they are totally missing the point (maybe deliberately) that the abuse itself isn't anywhere near as big a deal as the fact that the hierarchy knew about the abuse and chose to let it continue.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 04:54 PM
I don't think anyone disagrees with what you're saying. All we're saying is you don't have to look far to find examples of people these bank CEOs moving their brother to another area, even when it's clearly the wrong thing to do. Of parents enabling their drug abusing children, of people basically giving the benefit of the doubt to loved ones, not reporting them, or preventing them from hurting themselves or others, because they thought they could help them change.
A good recent example is that of Dr. Amy Bishop's parents.


I also don't know how often it was the case that priests ended up somewhere else analogous to "another branch of the bank." I know it did happen, but I don't think making these people the priest of a new parish was a matter of routine. I would add again the issue of a common "bleeding heart liberal" naivete about recidivism vs. redemtion/rehabilitation.

Kool-Aid Man
04-09-2010, 04:55 PM
I don't think anyone disagrees with what you're saying. All we're saying is you don't have to look far to find examples of people these bank CEOs moving their brother to another area, even when it's clearly the wrong thing to do. Of parents enabling their drug abusing children, of people basically giving the benefit of the doubt to loved ones, not reporting them, or preventing them from hurting themselves or others, because they thought they could help them change.
Here's the thing. If I worked at a bank where the CEO moved his brother from bank to bank to he could keep stealing, I'd soon be looking to work at another bank, and in my exit interview I'd make sure I told HR exactly why I left. If my parents were enabling my brother to molest kids, and when I confronted them their response was :shrug: yeah I think I'd break off all contact with them. In my opinion, the leadership of the church has yet to demonstrate that they appreciate the level of harm their actions and inactions have caused and as a result even though my wife still believes in Jesus and stuff, she no longer supports the RCC with her attendance or donations. If I still believed in God, I'd be doing the same.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 04:56 PM
I think lots of people disagree. The main defenders of the Church all seem to be saying "other people abuse children, why pick on us?".

I think they are totally missing the point (maybe deliberately) that the abuse itself isn't anywhere near as big a deal as the fact that the hierarchy knew about the abuse and chose to let it continue.
There is actually little basis for making a statement like this. And I am not a part of the "us."

Listeria
04-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Here's the thing. If I worked at a bank where the CEO moved his brother from bank to bank to he could keep stealing, I'd soon be looking to work at another bank, and in my exit interview I'd make sure I told HR exactly why I left. If my parents were enabling my brother to molest kids, and when I confronted them their response was :shrug: yeah I think I'd break off all contact with them. In my opinion, the leadership of the church has yet to demonstrate that they appreciate the level of harm their actions and inactions have caused and as a result even though my wife still believes in Jesus and stuff, she no longer supports the RCC with her attendance or donations. If I still believed in God, I'd be doing the same.
You think bishops moved priests around so that they "could keep on molesting"?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 05:00 PM
You think bishops moved priests around so that they "could keep on molesting"?

Did they have any reason to think the priests might not molest again? Did they have any reason to think someone who molested kids should be allowed to continue holding a position where they have opportunities to do so?

Kool-Aid Man
04-09-2010, 05:00 PM
You think bishops moved priests around so that they "could keep on molesting"?
Intentionally? No. But their actions fail the reasonable person test. They should have known the priests were likely to molest again.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 05:01 PM
http://www.projectmojave.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/sexy-ninja.jpg

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 05:04 PM
It is not at all rare for a parent to coach their kids into thinking thinking they were abused so they can score in the lawsuit.
It is a small minority of parents who would do that much harm to their children. Do you have any idea what is involved with these cases? It is very traumatizing to children.

Wasp
04-09-2010, 05:09 PM
my wife still believes in Jesus and stuff, she no longer supports the RCC with her attendance or donations. If I still believed in God, I'd be doing the same.

That's mighty big of you to support the RCC church with your attendance and donations because you no longer believe in God. So I guess you look at the RCC as some kind of satanic cult which is why you donate your time and money.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:15 PM
It is a small minority of parents who would do that much harm to their children. Do you have any idea what is involved with these cases? It is very traumatizing to children.
Do you really think that a person willing to slander an innocent adult to this degree has any concept of what you are saying?

Sai Carrying Warrior
04-09-2010, 05:17 PM
http://www.projectmojave.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/sexy-ninja.jpg
:love:

Barbara
04-09-2010, 05:20 PM
I think lots of people disagree. The main defenders of the Church all seem to be saying "other people abuse children, why pick on us?".

I think they are totally missing the point (maybe deliberately) that the abuse itself isn't anywhere near as big a deal as the fact that the hierarchy knew about the abuse and chose to let it continue.

There is actually little basis for making a statement like this.

You are right. My wording was sloppy. I should have said "chose to take an action which had the potential for allowing the abuse to continue rather than making sure it couldn't possibly happen again".

No, I don't think that the Church hierarchy deliberately set out to allow children to be abused. But, I do think they significantly failed to make sure it didn't happen.

I have a frequent battle with my daughter who says "But, I'm not TRYING to do something (like knock over her glass of milk)", to which I reply "I know you aren't trying to knock it over, but you aren't TRYING TO AVOID knocking it over either" (by moving it away from her elbow or something). I don't think she recognizes the difference between the two statements.

I think that the church hierarchy had a similar failure to understand.

Sai Carrying Warrior
04-09-2010, 05:20 PM
I like this one better though!
http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab138/OWENREALLYREALLYLOVESJESS/ninja_babe5.jpg
:love: :love: :love:

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:21 PM
Intentionally? No. But their actions fail the reasonable person test. They should have known the priests were likely to molest again.

"Should have known" is absurd. Which cases are you even talking about? What era? Adult women regularly take abusers back because they "don't know" and don't understand things they do understand only after years of their own experience. And we are talking about a faith that argues against the hopeless darkness of human nature. We in the US even live in a culture in which "some people are just bad" is a much rarer world view than is warranted by hard data, and "some cultures are superior to others" is socially inappropriate to say. But somehow bishops "should have known" that this particular group was beyond hope, throughout all history?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 05:23 PM
"Should have known" is absurd. Which cases are you even talking about? What era? Adult women regularly take abusers back because they "don't know" and don't understand things they do understand only after years of their own experience. And we are talking about a faith that argues against the hopeless darkness of human nature. We in the US even live in a culture in which "some people are just bad" is a much rarer world view than is warranted by hard data, and "some cultures are superior to others" is socially inappropriate to say. But somehow bishops "should have known" that this particular group was beyond hope, throughout all history?\

I'm sure that this would be your opinion if your child was molested by a teacher who had molested a child before and whose principal just transferred them to another school.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:26 PM
I think that the church hierarchy had a similar failure to understand.
No argument from me here. The church once had a failure to understand that the earth orbits the sun. All mankind once had a failure to understand that certain kinds of suffering are spread via tiny organisms invisible to the human eye. I just take issue with the frequent implications *I* have come across that this failure to understand was 100% willful and clearly evil and irresponsible. And I will certainly agree with anyone who says it was somewhat irresponsible.

Louis Rich
04-09-2010, 05:26 PM
I like this one better though!
http://i857.photobucket.com/albums/ab138/OWENREALLYREALLYLOVESJESS/ninja_babe5.jpg
:love: :love: :love:
:ht:

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:29 PM
\

I'm sure that this would be your opinion if your child was molested by a teacher who had molested a child before and whose principal just transferred them to another school.
If such a thing happened in 2010 it would be inexcusable. But if I were experiencing such a thing, I would also hope that I wouldn't succumb to the kinds of myopia or hysteria I have seen regarding these issues.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 05:36 PM
If such a thing happened in 2010 it would be inexcusable. But if I were experiencing such a thing, I would also hope that I wouldn't succumb to the kinds of myopia or hysteria I have seen regarding these issues.

Oh please. It doesn't matter if it is 2010 or 1970. If a priest/teacher/scout leader molests a child and is allowed by the leadership to just move to another position in a different city/school/church without informing the relevant authorities or any of the people whose children he'll now be working with, that leadership is egregiously negligent. Sorry, but your "I hope I wouldn't succumb..." is equivocating BS. If your child was molested because a bishop let a priest keep working with kids and didn't tell the parents he'd molested someone you'd be completely justified to be hysterical. What they did was inexcusable no matter the year. And it is uniquely deserving of criticism given the supposed moral superiority of the church.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 05:49 PM
In my opinion, the leadership of the church has yet to demonstrate that they appreciate the level of harm their actions and inactions have caused and as a result even though my wife still believes in Jesus and stuff, she no longer supports the RCC with her attendance or donations. If I still believed in God, I'd be doing the same.THIS is why people are defending the Church to the extend they do. The conversation always ends up here.

So we should stop attending/supporting the Church. Ok, so basically Catholics should change their beliefs about God, because of the actions of humans? That is completely asinine. So I'm Catholic, but because the actions of some other Catholics, now I'm going to be Muslim? Or Jewish? Or Protestant? What, start our own Church and abandon the one that we believe was founded by Jesus Christ and the apostles? Just get together for a barbeque and start a Church of our own?

Do you really think that's what people should do?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:50 PM
You can now piss off. You don't know me, you don't know what kind of stuff I have or haven't endured or forgiven, you don't know how or why I have already pondered these issues, and you have even less basis for declaring anything I say to be either equivocating or BS than you have for your various specious posted judgments in this thread.

Fish Actuary
04-09-2010, 05:51 PM
You think bishops moved priests around so that they "could keep on molesting"?

How many times can the priest abuse someone, he gets moved to a new parish cycle be repeated before it's not unreasonable to believe the quote to be true? I can see trying to move the priest somewhere new once on the assumption that it's a one time only thing. But at some point when you've had to move the guy a 2nd time, and a 3rd time, and a 4th time... don't you think the bishops have some responsibility to put an end to it? Also, there should be some learning going on here by the bishops. If it hasn't worked for the last 4 or 5 bad priests, why should you expect this approach to work for the next bad priest?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 05:55 PM
How many repeat offenses per offending priest were there, actually, and how many offending priests per bishop? Do you have figures? At what point in history were bishops morally obligated to understand that repentance and rehabilitaion do not work?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 06:01 PM
How many repeat offenses per offending priest were there, actually, and how many offending priests per bishop? Do you have figures? At what point in history were bishops morally obligated to understand that repentance and rehabilitaion do not work?

One is too many. If someone molests a child, that person is no longer a priest/teacher/daycare worker/any position where they are working closely with children. And any bishop who did not report child molestation to the proper authorities is complicit in any future acts.

Some things are completely inexcusable, and I have to say I'm shocked that someone is actually willing to defend these people.

Louis Rich
04-09-2010, 06:02 PM
One is too many. If someone molests a child, that person is no longer a priest/teacher/daycare worker/any position where they are working closely with children. And any bishop who did not report child molestation to the proper authorities is complicit in any future acts.

Some things are completely inexcusable, and I have to say I'm shocked that someone is actually willing to defend these people.
I'm shocked someone is willing to give a child abuser a second chance at working with children.

erosewater
04-09-2010, 06:06 PM
You can now piss off. You don't know me, you don't know what kind of stuff I have or haven't endured or forgiven, you don't know how or why I have already pondered these issues, and you have even less basis for declaring anything I say to be either equivocating or BS than you have for your various specious posted judgments in this thread.

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what you've endured or forgiven or what you've pondered, because it doesn't have any relevance here. Failing to report sexual abuse of a child and then allowing the offender to continue working with children is always, has always been, and always will be completely unacceptable, no matter how much "oh, in 1970 the bishop didn't know he might do it again" BS you try to wrap around it. If you'd like to be on the side of the molesters and their enablers be my guest.


your various specious posted judgments in this thread

:link:?

Listeria
04-09-2010, 06:34 PM
Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what you've endured or forgiven or what you've pondered, because it doesn't have any relevance here. Failing to report sexual abuse of a child and then allowing the offender to continue working with children is always, has always been, and always will be completely unacceptable, no matter how much "oh, in 1970 the bishop didn't know he might do it again" BS you try to wrap around it. If you'd like to be on the side of the molesters and their enablers be my guest.



:link:?
What I have or haven't endured or pondered is absolutely of relevance here as you have made yourself an authority on my inner thoughts, declaring that I am equivocating and BSing. What has no relevance here is nearly everything you've posted. The notion that sexually violating a child resides in some unique class of wrongdoing to which the usual concepts don't apply -- notions of possible rehabilitation, one of ANY crime being too many, the practice of the VICTIM or their families contacting the authorities if they choose to, accusation not equaling guilt -- is your problem, not mine. If your idea of responding to comments like "well it's not really clear that genocide was being perpetrated in Kosovo" is "well how would YOU like it if Hitler killed YOU!!?" which is along the lines of just one of the things you have wasted my time with here, then please allow me to be your guest in enabling pedophiles :roll:, by pissing off as requested.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 06:45 PM
I'm shocked someone is willing to give a child abuser a second chance at working with children.
Where is this happening now?

erosewater
04-09-2010, 07:12 PM
What I have or haven't endured or pondered is absolutely of relevance here as you have made yourself an authority on my inner thoughts, declaring that I am equivocating and BSing.


One need not be an authority on someone's inner thoughts to recognize equivocal BS. And this:


If such a thing happened in 2010 it would be inexcusable. But if I were experiencing such a thing, I would also hope that I wouldn't succumb to the kinds of myopia or hysteria I have seen regarding these issues.

is equivocal BS.

And you are wrong, what you have endured is completely irrelevant here. There is a very simple question to answer here: should a priest who molested a child be allowed to continue working with other children whose parents are completely unaware of those allegations, and should allegations of sexual abuse be reported to the proper authorities. I'd love to see you demonstrate the relevance of "what Listeria has pondered and endured" to answering those questions.

What has no relevance here is nearly everything you've posted. The notion that sexually violating a child resides in some unique class of wrongdoing to which the usual concepts don't apply -- notions of possible rehabilitation, one of ANY crime being too many, the practice of the VICTIM or their families contacting the authorities if they choose to, accusation not equaling guilt -- is your problem, not mine.

Yes, let's address those "usual concepts" one by one:

1) "notions of possible rehabilitation" - Since when did the church get to decide what was proper rehabilitation for molesting children? Do we not have a legal system that defines these things? Should the church be allowed to operate outside that legal system? Really, your "usual concept" here is also complete BS. The "usual concept" is not to allow someone's boss to decide if a child molester is properly rehabilitated.

2) "one of ANY crime being too many" - Yes, one instance of a child being molested by a priest whose bishop knew of prior abuse but decided not to report it but instead just move him to a different church is one too many. IMO if you disagree with that you are depraved.

3) "the practice of the VICTIM or their families contacting the authorities if they choose to" - You've already cited instances of abused women going back to their husbands, so it's kind of funny that you'd go here. Being a victim of an act like this has serious psychological effects on people, effects that hamper their ability to make the correct decisions about either reporting the attack or putting themselves in a position to be abused again. This is especially true in the case of children, and also especially true when the abuse happens at the hands of a trusted authority figure and spiritual leader. Honestly, I'm kind of shocked you're taking the "hey, the kid could have told the police if he wanted to" line of defense. As if the burden is on the victim, and not on the bishop who is in a position of authority and is supposed to a moral and spiritual leader.

4) "accusation not equaling guilt" - Neither I nor anyone else has said accusation = guilt. But guess what Listeria, we just so happen to have this nifty thing called a legal system that's pretty good at sorting those things out. It's too bad the church decided not to let that happen though. (This is also a ridiculous line of argument "some of them may have been innocent!")

So you're wrong, I'm not suggesting the usual concepts don't apply. The Catholic church did make that suggestion though, as have you in defending their decision to make their own determinations of rehabilitation rather than allowing our legal system to serve its purpose.


If your idea of responding to comments like "well it's not really clear that genocide was being perpetrated in Kosovo" is "well how would YOU like it if Hitler killed YOU!!?" which is along the lines of just one of the things you have wasted my time with here, then please allow me to be your guest in enabling pedophiles :roll:, by pissing off as requested.

Analogy fail. There is no uncertainty about the fact that certain bishops knew about allegations of child molestation and did not report it nor remove those priests from service. That is inexcusable. Like I said, if you'd like to defend the actions of those who enabled child molesters, be my guest.

Kool-Aid Man
04-09-2010, 07:23 PM
THIS is why people are defending the Church to the extend they do. The conversation always ends up here.

So we should stop attending/supporting the Church. Ok, so basically Catholics should change their beliefs about God, because of the actions of humans? That is completely asinine. So I'm Catholic, but because the actions of some other Catholics, now I'm going to be Muslim? Or Jewish? Or Protestant? What, start our own Church and abandon the one that we believe was founded by Jesus Christ and the apostles? Just get together for a barbeque and start a Church of our own?

Do you really think that's what people should do?
Absolutely.

The RCC likes to claim that it has a monopoly on True Christianity because it was the church founded by Christ. Well, I'm sorry but that means nothing to me. I've been to other Christian churches and they all seem to worship Jesus. Some of them believe different details, but I never was the type to feel I needed to agree with every detail of a church's teachings, otherwise I would have left the RCC a lot sooner than I did.

And if receiving your weekly Body of Christ is important to you, there are other Catholic churches other than the Roman kind.

Josia
04-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Are your own urges that much more helpful to you? Lots of people are plagued by urges that are destructive to themselves, to their lives, or destructive to someone else. Pedophelia is just a sad variant that by definition is illegal to fulfill. I thank the heavens that I don't have to live with a curse like that.

(I'm not saying this as a criticism of you)

Pedophilia isn't a choice. People are born with a curse like that.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 07:57 PM
THIS is why people are defending the Church to the extend they do. The conversation always ends up here.

So we should stop attending/supporting the Church. Ok, so basically Catholics should change their beliefs about God, because of the actions of humans? That is completely asinine. So I'm Catholic, but because the actions of some other Catholics, now I'm going to be Muslim? Or Jewish? Or Protestant? What, start our own Church and abandon the one that we believe was founded by Jesus Christ and the apostles? Just get together for a barbeque and start a Church of our own?

Do you really think that's what people should do?
Do what you want, but my conversion to atheism started with the priest abuse scandal. The first step was to strengthen my conviction against organized religion, since I already had distrust in anything that has too much power. Then when I started to unravel the history of religion and better my understanding of where people's beliefs come from, my own beliefs turned to dust and blew away.

The catholic church has had way too much power for too long. You could start your own church, but then over time you'd also succumb to the sexiness of power and you'd be creating your own scandals.

I understand that people defend the church largely because it represents the core of who they are. But that they are unwilling to criticize it despite its outrageous conduct, makes them as guilty as the pope.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 08:07 PM
It is not at all rare for a parent to coach their kids into thinking thinking they were abused so they can score in the lawsuit.
Back it up. That's an outrageous claim. If you have ever been up close to an abuse case you would see the extent of damage it can cause children. Sure there are abusive parents who would put their child at risk in order to win a lawsuit, but this is not that easy to pull off. Most cases require a degree of forensics. If there is no mental or physical evidence of trauma, then this is hard to pull off.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 08:13 PM
Pedophilia isn't a choice. People are born with a curse like that.
You know otherwise? How so?

FAS158
04-09-2010, 08:21 PM
Do what you want, but my conversion to atheism started with the priest abuse scandal. The first step was to strengthen my conviction against organized religion, since I already had distrust in anything that has too much power. Then when I started to unravel the history of religion and better my understanding of where people's beliefs come from, my own beliefs turned to dust and blew away.

The catholic church has had way too much power for too long. You could start your own church, but then over time you'd also succumb to the sexiness of power and you'd be creating your own scandals.

I understand that people defend the church largely because it represents the core of who they are. But that they are unwilling to criticize it despite its outrageous conduct, makes them as guilty as the pope.



Funny that I dismiss organized religion but that put more faith in me for a higher being, instead of becoming an atheist. Yes, another human cant tell you who God is. only you can. Reversion to atheism (or otherwise) is because of other internal struggles.

Baron Von Raschke
04-09-2010, 08:28 PM
Do what you want, but my conversion to atheism started with the priest abuse scandal.

Seems like you either believe or don't. I wouldn't think it's something you should be choosing out of spite.

The first step was to strengthen my conviction against organized religion, since I already had distrust in anything that has too much power. Then when I started to unravel the history of religion and better my understanding of where people's beliefs come from, my own beliefs turned to dust and blew away.

The catholic church has had way too much power for too long. You could start your own church, but then over time you'd also succumb to the sexiness of power and you'd be creating your own scandals.

I understand that people defend the church largely because it represents the core of who they are. But that they are unwilling to criticize it despite its outrageous conduct, makes them as guilty as the pope.

Replace "the Catholic Church" with "the US government" and you will better understand the viewpoint of many libertarians. Except the Catholic church doesn't have the power of the gun (at least not directly).

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
Funny that I dismiss organized religion but that put more faith in me for a higher being, instead of becoming an atheist. Yes, another human cant tell you who God is. only you can. Reversion to atheism (or otherwise) is because of other internal struggles.
My conversion to atheism had nothing to do with my internal struggles. The concept of God in current day provides comfort to people. In the old days god(s) may have only caused pain.

No, this had nothing to do with something inside me. But rather an analysis of what people are capable of believing in. I think the real tipping point was the Icelandic elves. It was really helpful to have a modern day seemingly crazy set of beliefs so different from what I'd grown familiar with to help bring to light human being's ability to believe fantastic things.

I'd heard the Jesus story from birth so had no trouble believing it. But if I were born in Iceland, I'm sure the elf story would have as easily come about.

Stanley Milgram
04-09-2010, 08:37 PM
Seems like you either believe or don't. I wouldn't think it's something you should be choosing out of spite. It wasn't out of spite. It was just what I needed to shake up the norm. If you were born into a fervently strong catholic household as I was, it would take something major to destroy that perspective. So, as I said, it was only the first step. And it only took me to the place where I could never ever follow an organized religion. So, standing on my own, I had to get to a place to support the underlying beliefs. And I tried really hard to do that. It just didn't work. Because the more time I took to think on things and study religion, the more it didn't hold together.



Replace "the Catholic Church" with "the US government" and you will better understand the viewpoint of many libertarians. Except the Catholic church doesn't have the power of the gun (at least not directly).
I get that, but the power of the catholic church is worse than the US government. Government only has generally accepted rules to rely on. But the church can dictate what you should feel in your heart.

FAS158
04-09-2010, 08:38 PM
My conversion to atheism had nothing to do with my internal struggles. The concept of God in current day provides comfort to people. In the old days god(s) may have only caused pain.

No, this had nothing to do with something inside me. But rather an analysis of what people are capable of believing in. I think the real tipping point was the Icelandic elves. It was really helpful to have a modern day seemingly crazy set of beliefs so different from what I'd grown familiar with to help bring to light human being's ability to believe fantastic things.

I'd heard the Jesus story from birth so had no trouble believing it. But if I were born in Iceland, I'm sure the elf story would have as easily come about.

I should have said, 'other personal realities' instead of 'other internal struggles'. Point being, I am not a fan of elves or jesus, nor do I pray to them, but I found faith outside of the conventional belief system, and you didnt. And I am not saying one is necessarily a superior result.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 08:49 PM
Back it up. That's an outrageous claim. If you have ever been up close to an abuse case you would see the extent of damage it can cause children. Sure there are abusive parents who would put their child at risk in order to win a lawsuit, but this is not that easy to pull off. Most cases require a degree of forensics. If there is no mental or physical evidence of trauma, then this is hard to pull off.
Take a look at a crime blog or blotter often enough and you will see that millions of bad people are stupid, and bad stupid people try to get away with crap on a regular basis.
You are also overlooking the phenomenon of delusional and/or hysterical people, ethics-challenged and overambitious prosecutors, and young people who lie for attention.
In the absence of DNA/physical trauma or video/confession from the accused, I don't see how an ethical person would pursue a sexual abuse case.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 09:04 PM
Do what you want, but my conversion to atheism started with the priest abuse scandal. The first step was to strengthen my conviction against organized religion, since I already had distrust in anything that has too much power. Then when I started to unravel the history of religion and better my understanding of where people's beliefs come from, my own beliefs turned to dust and blew away.

The catholic church has had way too much power for too long. You could start your own church, but then over time you'd also succumb to the sexiness of power and you'd be creating your own scandals.

I understand that people defend the church largely because it represents the core of who they are. But that they are unwilling to criticize it despite its outrageous conduct, makes them as guilty as the pope.
I have been accused of defending god-knows-what. Regardless of what faith I was raised in, I became an atheist like you eventually. So I don't know that catholicism has any more connection to my core than to yours. I have read and heard a lot of stuff i don't think holds water regarding this scandal, starting with this past Easter's drumbeat on NPR about how the Pope failed to say anything during his Easter Mass (is that when he would have?), and this normally liberally biased news outlet's repeated analyses that were completely missing any of the usual liberal soft-on-crime stuff like rehabilitation vs recidivism, or, as I have already posted, missing any discussion of "when did he come to understand that these perps are not reformable, by what point should he/they have understood" included in "what did he know and when did he know it?".
For me, this has everything to do with thinking clearly, and little to nothing to do with identity.

Baron Von Raschke
04-09-2010, 09:20 PM
I get that, but the power of the catholic church is worse than the US government. Government only has generally accepted rules to rely on. But the church can dictate what you should feel in your heart.

Only if you belong to it. Easier to leave the church than the country.

Listeria
04-09-2010, 09:26 PM
One need not be an authority on someone's inner thoughts to recognize equivocal BS. And this:



is equivocal BS.

And you are wrong, what you have endured is completely irrelevant here. There is a very simple question to answer here: should a priest who molested a child be allowed to continue working with other children whose parents are completely unaware of those allegations, and should allegations of sexual abuse be reported to the proper authorities. I'd love to see you demonstrate the relevance of "what Listeria has pondered and endured" to answering those questions.



Yes, let's address those "usual concepts" one by one:

1) "notions of possible rehabilitation" - Since when did the church get to decide what was proper rehabilitation for molesting children? Do we not have a legal system that defines these things? Should the church be allowed to operate outside that legal system? Really, your "usual concept" here is also complete BS. The "usual concept" is not to allow someone's boss to decide if a child molester is properly rehabilitated.

2) "one of ANY crime being too many" - Yes, one instance of a child being molested by a priest whose bishop knew of prior abuse but decided not to report it but instead just move him to a different church is one too many. IMO if you disagree with that you are depraved.

3) "the practice of the VICTIM or their families contacting the authorities if they choose to" - You've already cited instances of abused women going back to their husbands, so it's kind of funny that you'd go here. Being a victim of an act like this has serious psychological effects on people, effects that hamper their ability to make the correct decisions about either reporting the attack or putting themselves in a position to be abused again. This is especially true in the case of children, and also especially true when the abuse happens at the hands of a trusted authority figure and spiritual leader. Honestly, I'm kind of shocked you're taking the "hey, the kid could have told the police if he wanted to" line of defense. As if the burden is on the victim, and not on the bishop who is in a position of authority and is supposed to a moral and spiritual leader.

4) "accusation not equaling guilt" - Neither I nor anyone else has said accusation = guilt. But guess what Listeria, we just so happen to have this nifty thing called a legal system that's pretty good at sorting those things out. It's too bad the church decided not to let that happen though. (This is also a ridiculous line of argument "some of them may have been innocent!")

So you're wrong, I'm not suggesting the usual concepts don't apply. The Catholic church did make that suggestion though, as have you in defending their decision to make their own determinations of rehabilitation rather than allowing our legal system to serve its purpose.



Analogy fail. There is no uncertainty about the fact that certain bishops knew about allegations of child molestation and did not report it nor remove those priests from service. That is inexcusable. Like I said, if you'd like to defend the actions of those who enabled child molesters, be my guest.

It's like you can't even read. What I have endured is irrelevant to anything I have posted about this issue. The fact that I may know what I am talking about when I TALK ABOUT MYSELF, i.e. how I would like to think I would react in this situation or that, is what makes it entirely absurd for you be authoritatively stating that I am lying or equivocating or don't know what I am talking about.

the usual concepts that apply to crime do not include having as a practice third parties making the reports to the police. A child does not know how to find a bishop. A child will usually have told family of abuse by a priest by the time any bisop or cardinal finds out. Children and other victims often do not want to talk to police, and often do not want criminal charges filed. IF someone is going to lobby for this it SHOULD be the family. It is not going to be the bishop's word against the priests in a court of law, it is going to be the victim's. Up until recently, very few victims of child sexual abuse, catholic or non-catholic, victims of priests or non-priests, were having their experience reported to police, and only a small portion of those if any were having their experience reported by some party outside their own family. That is pretty close to the only point i was making in this whole thread. I have been seeing this characterized as a Catholic problem when I know that that is BS. I suspect that there is some contribution to the problem that comes from vows of celibacy, but it's pretty clear that they are small.

YOU have implied that the usual practice of reporting crimes that happen to you or your children don't apply in this particular case. But to go on, regarding the reporting of things to "the proper authorities"? Should this have gone on under the third reich, which was hostile to Catholicism? How about under the "proper authorities" of communist Poland, where the last Pope was a bishop and cardinal? The government was assiaasinating priests up to the 70's pr 80's there. What was this guy supposed to understand recidivism among child molesters in the 1950's or sixties, or the trauma involved in being a fondled child... on the heels of the loss of six million citizens lost in a recent war and a genocide against as many Jews perpetrated mostly on that country's soil (union of the two sets: nine million people dead.).

And this:
2) "one of ANY crime being too many" - Yes, one instance of a child being molested by a priest whose bishop knew of prior abuse but decided not to report it but instead just move him to a different church is one too many. IMO if you disagree with that you are depraved.
Sorry that's at least two crimes committed by that priest.
I certainly disagree that "one is too many" should apply only to child sexual abuse.



The relevance question of WHEN rehabilitation was understood to be improbable for this particular sin/crime is something you can't get around no matter how hard you try. This isn't a matter of the church deciding to see the issue differently in the case of this particular sin (molesting priests). The church is guilty of NOT singling this particular sin out for special redemption-is-not possible status, when the only basis for doing so lay with relatively recent findings in the the social sciences -- something completely outside the world view of the church, again, until recently. Atheist Listeria gets this, Jewish Lucy gets this, and maybe someday you can grasp it too.

Uncle Ted
04-09-2010, 09:27 PM
But the church can dictate what you should feel in your heart.So which of the things that they teach about what you should feel in your heart do you feel is corrupt?

erosewater
04-10-2010, 12:03 AM
The fact that I may know what I am talking about when I TALK ABOUT MYSELF, i.e. how I would like to think I would react in this situation or that, is what makes it entirely absurd for you be authoritatively stating that I am lying or equivocating or don't know what I am talking about.


When did I ever say "lying" or "don't know what you're talking about"? It was equivocal, which was all I said. That does not imply dishonesty or ignorance.


the usual concepts that apply to crime do not include having as a practice third parties making the reports to the police.


You are 100% wrong here. It's not a "usual concept" for a principal to report abusive behavior by one of the teachers? It's not a "usual concept" for a teacher or family friend to report child abuse? That's just a ridiculously false statement. Child abuse is quite frequently reported by a third party.

A child does not know how to find a bishop. A child will usually have told family of abuse by a priest by the time any bisop or cardinal finds out. Children and other victims often do not want to talk to police, and often do not want criminal charges filed.

It is a principal/bishop/cardinal/decent human beings duty to report sexual abuse of a child to the police. If a teacher molested a child it would not matter if the family wanted to pursue charges, the principal should report it to the police and remove that teacher from the classroom.

And you are making that bolded "often" do a whole lot of work there. Do you have a source for your claim?

I honestly cannot even fathom the mindset that thinks someone should be able to molest a child and not have it reported to the authorities.

Up until recently, very few victims of child sexual abuse, catholic or non-catholic, victims of priests or non-priests, were having their experience reported to police, and only a small portion of those if any were having their experience reported by some party outside their own family.

What's your point? Should child molesters be punished or not? I don't give a shit how often it's been reported. A simple question: if you have knowledge that someone molested a child should you report it to the police? You seem to agree with the Catholic church's view that it's OK for them to handle it in house. But the law is not on your side.

That is pretty close to the only point i was making in this whole thread. I have been seeing this characterized as a Catholic problem when I know that that is BS. I suspect that there is some contribution to the problem that comes from vows of celibacy, but it's pretty clear that they are small.

I don't even know who you're arguing with at this point. This has nothing to with anything I said.

YOU have implied that the usual practice of reporting crimes that happen to you or your children don't apply in this particular case.


No I haven't. It has nothing to do with the parents or children. There were bishops and cardinals that knew about abuse and did not report it. They covered it up and just moved them to new churches. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that makes that OK.


But to go on, regarding the reporting of things to "the proper authorities"? Should this have gone on under the third reich, which was hostile to Catholicism? How about under the "proper authorities" of communist Poland, where the last Pope was a bishop and cardinal? The government was assiaasinating priests up to the 70's pr 80's there.

What in gods name are you blathering about?


What was this guy supposed to understand recidivism among child molesters in the 1950's or sixties


See, here is where you really don't get it. It's not about recidivism. That's not how the law works, "Oh, he committed a crime, but he's sorry and I don't think he'll do it again." People who molest children, or commit any serious crime, should be punished. I don't care if recidivism was a total non-issue for child molesters and every single one of them was a one-time offender who never did it again. That doesn't negate the need to face consequences for their actions.


2) "one of ANY crime being too many" - Yes, one instance of a child being molested by a priest whose bishop knew of prior abuse but decided not to report it but instead just move him to a different church is one too many. IMO if you disagree with that you are depraved.
Sorry that's at least two crimes committed by that priest.


You accuse of me of not being able to read, when my quote was in direct response to you asking how many repeat offenders there were. One instance of a priest molesting another child after a bishop never reported him and just moved him to a new church is one too many.

Yes, when I said one is too many I meant that bishops should have seen the future and prevented the first instance of child abuse


The relevance question of WHEN rehabilitation was understood to be improbable for this particular sin/crime is something you can't get around no matter how hard you try. This isn't a matter of the church deciding to see the issue differently in the case of this particular sin (molesting priests). The church is guilty of NOT singling this particular sin out for special redemption-is-not possible status, when the only basis for doing so lay with relatively recent findings in the the social sciences -- something completely outside the world view of the church, again, until recently.


No, no, and no. Rehabilitation is completely irrelevant. The church does not have the authority to let someone off for serious crimes because they think the person is redeemed. You keep harping on this totally meaningless point of "they didn't know they would do it again". It doesn't matter. Sexual abuse of a child is one of the most depraved and deplorable crimes someone can commit, and it makes no difference at all how likely they are to repeat it, serious crimes deserve consequences.

So is your position that a church should be able to shield someone from punishment for a crime as long as they can reasonably believe they've repented and won't do it again?

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:07 AM
When did I ever say "lying" or "don't know what you're talking about"? It was equivocal, which was all I said. That does not imply dishonesty or ignorance.
When combined with the word bullshit it pretty much does exactly that.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:11 AM
You are 100% wrong here. It's not a "usual concept" for a principal to report abusive behavior by one of the teachers? It's not a "usual concept" for a teacher or family friend to report child abuse? That's just a ridiculously false statement. Child abuse is quite frequently reported by a third party.
Child abuse is reported by a third party when the parents are doing the abusing. Not when the abuser is outside the family and the family is upset about it.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:15 AM
It is a principal/bishop/cardinal/decent human beings duty to report sexual abuse of a child to the police. If a teacher molested a child it would not matter if the family wanted to pursue charges, the principal should report it to the police and remove that teacher from the classroom.

And you are making that bolded "often" do a whole lot of work there. Do you have a source for your claim?

I honestly cannot even fathom the mindset that thinks someone should be able to molest a child and not have it reported to the authorities.
You are unable to fathom a lot of the realities about this issue. You can find your own sources and start reading. After you learn how.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:32 AM
What's your point? Should child molesters be punished or not? I don't give a shit how often it's been reported. A simple question: if you have knowledge that someone molested a child should you report it to the police? You seem to agree with the Catholic church's view that it's OK for them to handle it in house. But the law is not on your side.
Not surprisingly, what I "seem" to you is incorrect. What I would do in 2010 is not relevant to this conversation. I don't have the beliefs that Catholics have about sin or human nature or redemption, and I know stuff about recidivism that wasn't known before some point in the past. Here and now, I think it would be beyond evil not to intervene against ongoing abuse. If I learned of a single event significantly in the past, my first thought would be to learn why the family hadn't acted and whether the victim him or herself wanted something done. I would probably also be swayed by what the actual abuse was.




I don't even know who you're arguing with at this point. This has nothing to with anything I said. I was explaining what I was doing in this thread at all. I've read repeated posturing and indignation from you that has nothing to do with anything *I* said, so welcome to the club.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 12:40 AM
When combined with the word bullshit it pretty much does exactly that.

No it doesn't. You might want to work on that reading thing you like to accuse others of being bad at.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 12:41 AM
Child abuse is reported by a third party when the parents are doing the abusing. Not when the abuser is outside the family and the family is upset about it.

Child is reported by a third party when a third party knows about it. Anyone, whether it is a friend, family member, teacher, principal, neighbor, who knows about child being sexually abused should report it to the authorities. Do you disagree with that?

erosewater
04-10-2010, 12:43 AM
You are unable to fathom a lot of the realities about this issue. You can find your own sources and start reading. After you learn how.

So like I thought, you've got nothing.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 12:51 AM
Not surprisingly, what I "seem" to you is incorrect.

You've expressed exactly zero disapproval of the Catholic church deciding that they would handle it in house without going to the authorities, and have implied that that is acceptable because at the time they may not have known about the likelihood of repeat offenses. So no, I was correct.

What I would do in 2010 is not relevant to this conversation. I don't have the beliefs that Catholics have about sin or human nature or redemption,

Catholic beliefs about sin and redemption are as irrelevant as that nonsense you posted about the Holocaust. Their beliefs do not make it OK for them to let child molestation go unreported and unpunished.


and I know stuff about recidivism that wasn't known before some point in the past. Here and now, I think it would be beyond evil not to intervene against ongoing abuse.

So the only reason to intervene is to prevent ongoing abuse? That's a pretty depraved worldview.

You keep talking about recidivism and "ongoing abuse", yet you can't understand why someone would characterize you as agreeing with the church's view that its OK for someone to not face any consequnces if they won't do it again.


I was explaining what I was doing in this thread at all. I've read repeated posturing and indignation from you that has nothing to do with anything *I* said, so welcome to the club.

The view that me wanting people to be punished for sexually abusing children is "posturing" is equally depraved.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:54 AM
No I haven't. It has nothing to do with the parents or children. There were bishops and cardinals that knew about abuse and did not report it. They covered it up and just moved them to new churches. There is nothing you or anyone else can say that makes that OK.
You are disturbingly clueless about the experience of being the victim of a crime like this. Privacy is a huge consideration. Conflicted feelings on the part of the victim about getting the perp publicly in trouble are a huge consideration. The shameful record of law enforcement in numerous areas of crime, especially in the era before DNA evidence is a huge consideration.


What in gods name are you blathering about? Two examples of places and eras in which your proclamations don't withstand scrutiny. Also the two places that shaped the two most recent Popes, one of which has been a topic in more than one post in this thread.



See, here is where you really don't get it. It's not about recidivism. That's not how the law works, "Oh, he committed a crime, but he's sorry and I don't think he'll do it again." People who molest children, or commit any serious crime, should be punished. I don't care if recidivism was a total non-issue for child molesters and every single one of them was a one-time offender who never did it again. That doesn't negate the need to face consequences for their actions. Priests do not report criminals who confess to them. They don't report crimes to the police unless perhaps a crime happens on church grounds. Catholics, from all appearances, believe in consequences for actions insofar as they serve to provide lessons to the bad actor. Beyond that, penitence brings absolution and a Christian's duty is to forgive or have faith in another person's grace. Maybe I have the vocabulary wrong. I don't think I have the concepts wrong. Your beef is with the entire Catholic world view. Its unintended consequences certainly reach far beyond child sexual abuse by priests.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 12:55 AM
So like I thought, you've got nothing.
No, I don't have unlimited TIME. I still haven't gotten through your last batch of parsing and drumbeating.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 01:11 AM
You are disturbingly clueless about the experience of being the victim of a crime like this.


Yet another ridiculously false statement. You know nothing about me.


Privacy is a huge consideration. Conflicted feelings on the part of the victim about getting the perp publicly in trouble are a huge consideration.

Being a victim causes a lot of psychological turmoil, often including wanting to protect your attacker. Those "conflicted feelings" do not exonerate the perp or make them any less deserving of punishment.

The shameful record of law enforcement in numerous areas of crime, especially in the era before DNA evidence is a huge consideration.


Good lord, you are pumping out the despicable arguments with alarming frequency.

Since law enforcement has acted poorly in the past we ought to let this child molester go free.


Two examples of places and eras in which your proclamations don't withstand scrutiny. Also the two places that shaped the two most recent Popes, one of which has been a topic in more than one post in this thread.

Oh please. You've got to be kidding me. So you've given an example of a situation where the church was being persecuted and that is supposed to be a reason why they wouldn't report crimes? Yes, in communist Poland some priests were assassinated, and that is justification from bishops in the US not reporting sexual abuse. Got it.


Priests do not report criminals who confess to them. They don't report crimes to the police unless perhaps a crime happens on church grounds. Catholics, from all appearances, believe in consequences for actions insofar as they serve to provide lessons to the bad actor. Beyond that, penitence brings absolution and a Christian's duty is to forgive or have faith in another person's grace. Maybe I have the vocabulary wrong. I don't think I have the concepts wrong. Your beef is with the entire Catholic world view. Its unintended consequences certainly reach far beyond child sexual abuse by priests.

Thanks captain obvious. Yes, a church that feels they don't need to report the sexual abuse of children has a twisted and depraved worldview. It's funny that this is how you frame it when the original point of the thread was that there was nothing particular about Catholics that makes them culpable here. Yes, I have a beef with anyone, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, Jehovah's Witness, Wiccan, Atheist, etc who believes that their religious belief makes it OK to not report the sexual abuse of a child. I guess that's just posturing and drumbeating.

Baron Von Raschke
04-10-2010, 01:15 AM
http://static.open.salon.com/files/26jul9-getting-a-life_85.jpg

Listeria
04-10-2010, 01:20 AM
Yet another ridiculously false statement. You know nothing about me.
No, you've made your ignorance of the ranges of reactions to this experience ridiculously obvious.





Oh please. You've got to be kidding me. So you've given an example of a situation where the church was being persecuted and that is supposed to be a reason why they wouldn't report crimes? Yes, in communist Poland some priests were assassinated, and that is justification from bishops in the US not reporting sexual abuse. Got it.
When did this conversation become limited to the US? I thought it was about the universality of how unusually horrible it is to experience sexual abuse as a child, no matter when or where.
(eta, for the slow: a priest in communist Poland probably couldn't count on the "proper authorities" to do the work of investigating whether or not an alleged abuse took place, and delivering an honest report on the matter. It could easily put an innocent priest at risk, and for what, when once upon a time the affliction of pedophelia was thought curable through spiritual renewal, i.e. a spiritual malady fixable within one's own spiritual life. Anywhere else in the world, and up to a few decades ago, variants of these complexities would have to have been at play.)


Thanks captain obvious. Yes, a church that feels they don't need to report the sexual abuse of children has a twisted and depraved worldview. It's funny that this is how you frame it when the original point of the thread was that there was nothing particular about Catholics that makes them culpable here. Yes, I have a beef with anyone, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, Scientologist, Jehovah's Witness, Wiccan, Atheist, etc who believes that their religious belief makes it OK to not report the sexual abuse of a child. I guess that's just posturing and drumbeating.
thank God we're done then.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 01:20 AM
:lolup:

had that one coming

Listeria
04-10-2010, 01:21 AM
ninja'd

erosewater
04-10-2010, 01:26 AM
When did this conversation become limited to the US? I thought it was about the universality of how unusually horrible it is to experience sexual abuse as a child, no matter when or where.


Wow. Yes, that is what it's about. Yet somehow you think an extreme counter-example of "Oh yeah, how about in communist Poland where they were persecuting Catholics and assassinating priests, should THEY have reported sexual abuse to the authorities?" proves something. I wasn't aware I needed to caveat my opinions with "This is something you should always do, unless you are living under a ruthless communist regime who will murder you for doing the right thing." Seriously, you thought "Why would they tell the authorties, when the authorities might want to KILL them!" was a good argument?

Listeria
04-10-2010, 01:47 AM
The issue of killing priests weas simply an example of the level of hostility of the authorities to the church. An innocent priest could easily be railroaded by such a government. I already edited that post to clarify.

Since killing and the US have come up though, here in the US, however, someone did just recently kill his son for being inappropriate with his daughter. Another guy has defended three of the young men accused of raping his 7-year-old step-daughter -- thinks they are innocent. There are all kinds of ways people respond to either the crime or just an allegation. I'm pretty sure I would rather experience the horror of child sexual abuse than the horror of a false accusation of it.

erosewater
04-10-2010, 01:52 AM
The issue of killing priests was simply an example of the level of hostility of the authorities to the church. An innocent priest could easily be railroaded by such a government. I already edited that post to clarify.

Since killing and the US have come up though, here in the US, however, someone did just recently kill his son for being inappropriate with his daughter. Another guy has defended three of the young men accused of raping his 7-year-old step-daughter -- thinks they are innocent. There are all kinds of ways people respond to either the crime or just an allegation.

There once existed a gov't that killed priests, could railroad them even. And some guy is defending the people who raped his daughter. So why shouldn't bishops fail to report sexual abuse by priests? I mean come on, the logic is simple.

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 09:56 AM
I want Listeria on my jury should I ever need one.

Lucy
04-10-2010, 10:01 AM
There once existed a gov't that killed priests, could railroad them even. And some guy is defending the people who raped his daughter. So why shouldn't bishops fail to report sexual abuse by priests? I mean come on, the logic is simple.
Let me take a shot at it.

1) The life experience of the most recent two popes would lead a reasonable man to a deep distrust of government.
2) It is the policy of the Catholic Church to keep confessions secret. I think there is currently an exception if the recipient of the confession thinks the confessor is about to commit a crime, but I don't think there are any exceptions for confessions of past sins. (or crimes).
3) In the 60s, sexual orientation was widely believed to be malleable, and undesirable orientations (such as homosexuality or pedophilia) to be curable. The Catholic church, which has a fundamental belief in Grace would be especially likely to believe in the possibility of curing a repentant priest.
4) It is human nature to protect your own.
5) While it is damaging to be sexually abused as a child, it is ALSO damaging to be in the news and known to have been sexually abused, especially if the news comes out while you are still a child, and especially if some people will think you made it up. (and some will.) It is natural for many victims and their families to want to protect themselves more than they want to punish the offender or remove him from access to others.

So yes, they should have reported the crimes. And yes, they should have done more to remove the priests from access to children. But not having done so is a very understandable crime, and almost any organization would have done so in the 50s and 60s, and the Church had more reason to do so than most.

Also, and this may be a new point in this thread, there's a wide range of "sexual abuse" that priests are accused of having done. Most of it was not "raping children". A lot was (probably consensual) homosexual sex with teens. A lot was "fondling" of children.

My brother went to a summer camp where the camp director conducted a "hernia exam" on every boy. Yes, I think the director was sexually motivated. But he managed to hide his motives from most of the boys, even while fondling them. I believe it would have been more harmful to the boys to have had to testify in court about being "sexually abused" than it was to pretend it was a legitimate medical exam. (Not that the matter came up. I don't think any adults outside of the camp knew it even happened at the time, and I only learned about it recently from my brother. I don't believe he was damaged by the incident, although it lends additional credibility to the contempt with which he held the camp director at the time.)

My point is that a lot of the crimes were somewhat ambiguous. Some weren't, of course. But the "standard operating procedure" was probably colored by the majority of cases, which I believe to have been the more ambiguous type.

Mores change. Today, in 2010, it is unacceptable to fail to report sexual abuse of a child. I'm not so certain it was so clearly unacceptable back when most of these cases occurred.

PhildeTruth
04-10-2010, 10:36 AM
Thank you for the history lesson, Lucy!

Baron Von Raschke
04-10-2010, 11:01 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abc-news-investigation-usa-swimming-coaches-raped-molested/story?id=10322469

In a sex abuse scandal that some victims compare to what happened in the Catholic Church, at least 36 swimming coaches have been banned for life by the USA Swimming organization over the last 10 years because of sexual misconduct with teenagers they coached.

....


Wielgus says the local swim clubs, not the national organization, bear the responsibility to check the full backgrounds of swimming coaches they hire.

He said the 36 coaches banned by the organization over the last ten years were only a tiny fraction of the organization's 12,000 coaches in that time period.

"Thirty six does seem like a whole lot. A hundred is even more. Five hundred is even more," he told correspondent Brian Ross.

Asked if he had apologized to any of the young teen victims, Wielgus responded, "You feel I need to apologize to them?

...

The leadership of US Swimming is an arrogant mess?

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 12:37 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abc-news-investigation-usa-swimming-coaches-raped-molested/story?id=10322469



The leadership of US Swimming is an arrogant mess?

need more info on this to pass judgment on this guy you quoted, but from the little clip you posted, it said the offending coaches were banned. That's more than the CC did with it's problem members.
Also, not sure about the structure of the swim thing. How much authority does the central org have over the smaller local orgs? The CC is very controlling of the smaller local parishes, so it'd be harder to believe the higher-ups in the CC DIDN'T know what was going on.

Baron Von Raschke
04-10-2010, 12:45 PM
Yeah plus USA swimming never tells its members not to videotape little girls so it's not hypocritical.

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 12:46 PM
Unfortunately, my Catholic faith does not mean a guarantee that individual men are worthy of putting my faith in. That's why I don't. I very much respect the position of Priest and Bishop. I very much respect the vast majority of the men I have met in those positions. Very few strike me as anything but good and holy men who are doing what they are doing out of a real faith in God, and a commitment to service in Him. I truly believe that. This goes all the way up to our current Pope.

If any of these men should fail us miserably through the actions we are discussing, it would be sad at numerous levels. It would and should require discipline commensurate with the actions. And there were failures in the past. Some of the publicized failures of leadership are very real and disturbing, and we've been through all that. Some, I believe, are way overblown and an emotional reaction believing that perfect hindsight is something that should have been known at the time. And many certain mistakes, I believe, had no malice whatever intended, and were simply that: mistakes in judgment. But, yes, the serious ones or those without reasonable explanation deserve punishment. It strikes me that few people seem concerned with weighing and balancing all these things, and more and more I just see rants about cries for blood.

All this reminds me that people who put their faith in men - even men of the church - rather than God, will ultimately be disappointed. Jesus tells me that His words will live on. I believe in the Tradition and teachings of the Church. I believe the Holy Spirit is the protector of the teachings of the Church, and preserves a Pope from exclaiming dogmatic error. The Holy Spirit, in fact, must be the protector, because we have seen the imperfection of men.

So what does that mean? It means that we've had corrupt Popes along the way. It means we've had Priests do outright evil things. It means we've had Bishops look the other way when they shouldn't. It means we have a bunch of men do everything from make simple mistakes to promote or at least fail to discourage evil behavior.

We've seen the result: victims who have and always will suffer from this; a Church that is suffering, and in my opinion will now suffer outright persecution. We've seen people's faith shaken. We've seen anger and resentment result. We've seen people call today's Priests who had nothing to do with any of this every horrible name under the sun. The Church is emblematic of everything and everyone. Sin has a way of catching up with you, and when it does the results aren't pretty.

People very often mistake the failings of the men in the Church with a failure of the teachings of Christ. Not true at all. All it shows is that Christ's teachings can be difficult to live up to for everyone. People often cite things that happened hundreds of years ago, or Galileo, or whatever when they aren't consumed with the Priestly abuse scandal as a reason for losing faith in the Church.

But all these men are not truly "the Chruch." The Church is Christ. Men who make that Church up are imperfect. Some do evil things. Even among the chosen twelve, on of them betrayed Christ, leading to His death. This is nothing new. Judas' betrayal of Christ no more means that Christ's teachings were wrong than failed Priests and Bishoips mean the Church's teachings were wrong.

I truly believe that the Priests and Bishops of today are not representative of what happened a few decades ago. But even if I'm wrong - hopefully not - it does not shake my faith in the teachings of the Church.

I'm Catholic. I'm gald to be Catholic. And despite the current and sad scandal, I've never been more proud to stand up for my faith. And if that means that, in some way, I go through persecution of insults because of it, so be it.

My Priest last week addressed this in the homily a little bit. Just his own perspective: Holy Week was about the death and resurrection of Christ brought about by lies, false accusations, betrayal, and numerous other sins - including all of our own sins, which with every sinful action we do betrays Christ. All this evil, suffering, and persecution of Christ led to a resurrection. Perhaps the current crisis is a way of God highlighting ALL abuse. It has to stop. People need to be outraged that anyone would do this, and it has to displease God greatly that it happened in His own Church. Perhaps through the fruit of her own betrayers, the actions of the Judases within the Church lead to a persecution and suffering of the entire body of Christ that ultimately leads to a resurrection of sorts, not just for the good of the Church but as good for everyone.

God bless.

Well written post, Gomer_tree.

Where was god during all of this? I can accept the fact that people make mistakes, and that priests/bishops are people like you and me, with all of our foibles. I feel the church has a ways to go in apologizing and admitting the full truth of what happened, but that's just my opinion.
But how could god let his representatives on earth stray so far from The Path? I don't buy the argument that this little episode was a necessary component in the grand drama that leads to the fulfillment of some biblical prophesies, leading to the final judgment of good and evil. But then again I'm not a believe in the faith (anymore).
Is it not reasonable to see this episode in the church as proof that there is no god listening to us, caring for us? If there was a god, what would his motivation be for letting his agents abuse children? Thousands of abused children probably cried themselves to sleep over what happened to them, praying to their god to help them, to ease their pain. Their cried were met with the greatest silence. If I were in their shoes, it would totally seem that there is no god. Why would god not help them?
I guess this gets back to the story of Job, the outcome of which I totally disagree with.

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 12:48 PM
Yeah plus USA swimming never tells its members not to videotape little girls so it's not hypocritical.

:confused:

I don't know what you're talking about. What is the point of bringing up other organizations that have child abuse problems? Everyone who thinks the CC was wrong with their handling of their crisis would also think any other organizations with a similar problem need to face justice, too.

Baron Von Raschke
04-10-2010, 01:20 PM
:confused:

I don't know what you're talking about. What is the point of bringing up other organizations that have child abuse problems? Everyone who thinks the CC was wrong with their handling of their crisis would also think any other organizations with a similar problem need to face justice, too.

I was trying to make a joke. Wrong thing to joke about.

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 02:15 PM
^^^ it's more than just another example of why does god allow evil in the world. The fact that it occurred within the church makes it "closer" to god, though for god all things are equally close. God would have the same strength to prevent things regardless if it's the church or not. Still, the church has proclaimed itself in the past as unique in it's relation to god and its ability to forgive sins and pass out redemption. It just makes it seem that the church is purely a human construction, subject to the same problems as other man-made groups.

I'm sure if there was an organized atheist group that had this same abuse problem there would be a lot of "oh, see what happens when you take god out of something? People commit sins/act immorally" from people on the faith side. Like distance from god is proportional to increased immoral activity. But when it happens in their own groups, well, then it's totally understandable, we're all human, blah blah blah

Lucy
04-10-2010, 02:43 PM
personally, I'm kinda sloppy about capitalization. I don't always capitalize my name, or my husband's name, especially in casual e-mail. So if I neglect to capitalize, you shouldn't read anything into it. I sort of try to capitalize when talking about "the one true" and use lower case when talking about "one of the many in the pantheon", but eh, you never know.

Fish Actuary
04-10-2010, 03:13 PM
Child is reported by a third party when a third party knows about it. Anyone, whether it is a friend, family member, teacher, principal, neighbor, who knows about child being sexually abused should report it to the authorities. Do you disagree with that?

Just to follow-up on this point, there are a number of professions in many states that are required by law to report suspected child abuse if they become aware of it (e.g. teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers etc.). It doesn't matter who's the potential abuser, just that the kid is being abused.

Fish Actuary
04-10-2010, 03:20 PM
personally, I'm kinda sloppy about capitalization. I don't always capitalize my name, or my husband's name, especially in casual e-mail. So if I neglect to capitalize, you shouldn't read anything into it. I sort of try to capitalize when talking about "the one true" and use lower case when talking about "one of the many in the pantheon", but eh, you never know.


I don't really think about capitalizing god too much. I figure I'm pissing off someone no matter how I write it. Gomer wants it capitalized, someone else doesn't want the G used because humans aren't good enough to say gods name, etc.

Lucy
04-10-2010, 03:33 PM
I don't really think about capitalizing god too much. I figure I'm pissing off someone no matter how I write it. Gomer wants it capitalized, someone else doesn't want the G used because humans aren't good enough to say gods name, etc.Um, Jews often type "G-d", so as to avoid writing the word "God". I don't know of anyone religious who prefers you avoid the capitalization.

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 03:35 PM
Well, you asked, and I answered. Anything else I'd say would be more of the same. At some point, there is an element of faith that must enter in that trusts in God's ultimate goodness in order for it to make sense enough for it to not shake your faith. Without that, it's easy to dismiss God altogether.

As a complete aside, I've always wondered why atheists refuse to capitalize God when having this kind of back and forth. I get that you don't believe in God as I do, but if I'm writing to someone about their invisible friend Jimmy, I wouldn't not capitalize Jimmy when talking with them in order to make some additional point about about how I don't really believe jimmy exists, so damn it, I'm not going to capitalize jimmy.

It's kind of a pet peeve of mine, I guess. Seems overly religious for someone claiming no religion. But it's a free country. It's entirely possible you mean nothing of it. It just brings me back to discussions with Mulan a long time ago where it seemed like more of a statement like "I don't believe in your god, and I refuse to capitalize it, and you can't make me!" So maybe I'm just having flashbacks and never quite got over that blatant atheistic attitude.

sorry, no offense intended. Just lazy sometimes, I don't mean you or anyone else on here any disrespect.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 08:05 PM
Just to follow-up on this point, there are a number of professions in many states that are required by law to report suspected child abuse if they become aware of it (e.g. teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers etc.). It doesn't matter who's the potential abuser, just that the kid is being abused.
The most concrete reason to "suspect" child abuse is for the abuser confess it. Priests, therapists, and personal attorneys are not bound by this practice. They are not bound by an obligation to report an allegation made by someone other than the perp any more than you are. Further, the phenomenon of the obligation by nurses, teachers, etc. is not worldwide and has existed in a recent microblip in history that has little relationship to the reason there is a scandal in the church, i.e. practices of decades ago. Decades ago, in the US, for example, a person attempting to report suspected child abuse to some appropriate agency might be told off and instructed to mind their own business, as was one of my family-members experience in the 1960's when she KNEW her neighbors kids were being beaten. Again, this was upon calling the city agency charged with children's welfare or something.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 08:19 PM
I want Listeria on my jury should I ever need one.


My conduct on a jury will depend entirely on what the evidence is, how good a job the lawyers do, and possibly on my own previous knowledge about crime. You may think I am indefensibly lenient here, but I have shown myself to be extremely judgmental here in the AO regarding specific things. It's part of my depravity, like the time I posted how disturbing it was to me to be reading a series of posts snickering about exploiting some (abstracted) young woman's history of sexual abuse in one's ongoing process of cultivating a f***buddy. Of course I was called out on my utter depravity, rebuked, and ridiculed, as you would expect. I am trying to be better, but sometimes I slip. :oops:

Hugh Jass
04-10-2010, 08:53 PM
My conduct on a jury will depend entirely on what the evidence is, how good a job the lawyers do, and possibly on my own previous knowledge about crime. You may think I am indefensibly lenient here, but I have shown myself to be extremely judgmental here in the AO regarding specific things. It's part of my depravity, like the time I posted how disturbing it was to me to be reading a series of posts snickering about exploiting some (abstracted) young woman's history of sexual abuse in one's ongoing process of cultivating a f***buddy. Of course I was called out on my utter depravity, rebuked, and ridiculed, as you would expect. I am trying to be better, but sometimes I slip. :oops:

I meant it as a compliment to you; if I ever got in trouble for something, they got the wrong guy. I'd want you to give me the benefit of the doubt and give me hope that a jury would believe my side of the story

Listeria
04-10-2010, 09:06 PM
We all know it was Hugh Jerass, not you!!!

Fish Actuary
04-10-2010, 09:29 PM
Um, Jews often type "G-d", so as to avoid writing the word "God". I don't know of anyone religious who prefers you avoid the capitalization.

Ah. I knew it was something like that.

Dismal Science
04-10-2010, 10:37 PM
Apparently USA swim coaches are prone to abuse as well:

http://www.breitbart.tv/abc-news-investigation-usa-swim-coaches-taped-molested-dozens-of-teen-girls/

Listeria
04-10-2010, 11:07 PM
They're part of the human race, so it's not surprising.

Baron Von Raschke
04-10-2010, 11:13 PM
That's human racist.

Listeria
04-10-2010, 11:24 PM
They're mostly scum. I don't care if this costs me my entire academic career! IT'S THE TRUTH!

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 09:53 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T2

OH NO! DON'T LET THIS MEASURE GO THROUGH!

this sure seems like an admission of guilt to me!

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 09:56 AM
on another note, remember when the catholic church would excommunicate people for their stance on abortion? Like senators and such who vote pro-choice. Gee, how come they're so quick to pass judgement on someone else (who technically didn't even commit a sin themselves) but yet expect everyone's forgiveness and understanding when they (the church) do something wrong?

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 09:56 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T2

OH NO! DON'T LET THIS MEASURE GO THROUGH!

this sure seems like an admission of guilt to me!

Is that even constitutional? I thought we weren't allowed to have ex post facto laws.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 09:57 AM
on another note, remember when the catholic church would excommunicate people for their stance on abortion? Like senators and such who vote pro-choice. Gee, how come they're so quick to pass judgement on someone else (who technically didn't even commit a sin themselves) but yet expect everyone's forgiveness and understanding when they (the church) do something wrong?

How is excommunicating their own members "passing judgment on someone else"?

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 09:59 AM
How is excommunicating their own members "passing judgment on someone else"?

not sure how to answer your question, sam; making a judgement seems integral to the excommunication process. Maybe we have different definitions of what passing judgement means?

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:00 AM
not sure how to answer your question, sam; making a judgement seems integral to the excommunication process. Maybe we have different definitions of what passing judgement means?

Or maybe we have difference definitions of what "someone else" means.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:03 AM
Is that even constitutional? I thought we weren't allowed to have ex post facto laws.

probably not. And if it's not, then I hope that it doesn't go through.

But it is fun to watch them squirm. Why are they so afraid of a repeal of the statute of limitations? It's like they know exactly who was molested and when and they're able to calculate the damage if this legislation goes through.
I'm sure they're hiding their position behind "we don't want a bunch of frivolous lawsuits" and "records from 70 years ago are spotty at best". If it's a case of he-said he-said from 70 years ago I doubt anyone would win against the CC anyways if that's the only evidence they've got.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:08 AM
Or maybe we have difference definitions of what "someone else" means.

hmmm.

perhaps I should reword my thoughts as such:

the church excommunicated several politicians because of their voting record regading abortion. This is in accordance with their own rules, which they are totally free to execute as they see fit.

But at the same time, the church knew of numerous instances of other members of their flock, priests actually, molesting other members of their flock (parishoners) and chose to allow the priests to stay in the church and simply moved them to another location to cover up the incident.

An outsider (me) sees these actions as incongruent with eachother and thinks that it is pretty absurd to have an organization like this. But if some people don't have a problem with this kind of double standard, then of course they are free to continue living and believing how they see fit.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:15 AM
hmmm.

perhaps I should reword my thoughts as such:

the church excommunicated several politicians because of their voting record regading abortion. This is in accordance with their own rules, which they are totally free to execute as they see fit.

But at the same time, the church knew of numerous instances of other members of their flock, priests actually, molesting other members of their flock (parishoners) and chose to allow the priests to stay in the church and simply moved them to another location to cover up the incident.

An outsider (me) sees these actions as incongruent with eachother and thinks that it is pretty absurd to have an organization like this. But if some people don't have a problem with this kind of double standard, then of course they are free to continue living and believing how they see fit.



Yes, reworded much better. And I'm with you. I believe that the Catholic Church should be much stricter in their policing of their own priests. But as Lucy and others have noted, they believe that this is a sin among many other sins, and that all sin can be overcome with prayer and Grace.

I can see a bit of logic in their handling of things. In the case of the politician, the politician is actively promoting something that the Church finds to be sinful (abortion or gay marriage). Those politicians have the chance to renounce their previous views, and stop supporting the sinful practice. As far as I am aware, no priest has argued that molestation is a good and right thing, as politicians would argue that gay marriage or abortion is a good and right thing (in the case of abortion, they would probably argue that having access to abortion is good and right, even if abortion itself isn't). The priests have the same chance to repent that the politicians have, and presumably, before being moved to another parish, most or all of these priests did confess their sin and promise to repent. Maybe most of them actually did want to repent of their sins. Of course, sexual urges often tend to be stronger than a desire to be godly.

However, all of this secrecy and cover-up has only served to discredit the church and the name of Christ, which is itself a grave sin. The Catholic church has done a great harm to the Christian Church, and her leaders will have to answer to it on Judgment Day, as we all will for our own individual sins. The New Testament does proclaim that teachers are held to a higher standard, though, and I do wish the Catholic Church would hold her priests to a higher standard than it does (in some cases) its politicians.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:23 AM
Yes, reworded much better. And I'm with you. I believe that the Catholic Church should be much stricter in their policing of their own priests. But as Lucy and others have noted, they believe that this is a sin among many other sins, and that all sin can be overcome with prayer and Grace.

I can see a bit of logic in their handling of things. In the case of the politician, the politician is actively promoting something that the Church finds to be sinful (abortion or gay marriage). Those politicians have the chance to renounce their previous views, and stop supporting the sinful practice. As far as I am aware, no priest has argued that molestation is a good and right thing, as politicians would argue that gay marriage or abortion is a good and right thing (in the case of abortion, they would probably argue that having access to abortion is good and right, even if abortion itself isn't). The priests have the same chance to repent that the politicians have, and presumably, before being moved to another parish, most or all of these priests did confess their sin and promise to repent. Maybe most of them actually did want to repent of their sins. Of course, sexual urges often tend to be stronger than a desire to be godly.

However, all of this secrecy and cover-up has only served to discredit the church and the name of Christ, which is itself a grave sin. The Catholic church has done a great harm to the Christian Church, and her leaders will have to answer to it on Judgment Day, as we all will for our own individual sins. The New Testament does proclaim that teachers are held to a higher standard, though, and I do wish the Catholic Church would hold her priests to a higher standard than it does (in some cases) its politicians.
Well, how would the Catholic Church handle it if a priest was murdering people instead of molesting them? Is this also a sin among other sins and would they pray for redemption and relocate them as well? Molestation is murder of a child's soul/spirit so to me they are "equal" as "sins" could be.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:25 AM
Well, how would the Catholic Church handle it if a priest was murdering people instead of molesting them? Is this also a sin among other sins and would they pray for redemption and relocate them as well? Molestation is murder of a child's soul/spirit so to me they are "equal" as "sins" could be.

:shrug:

I am not now nor have ever been a Roman Catholic, so I'm not the best person to ask. I'm just giving what I think is their rationale behind it. I suspect that they would treat murder differently, but if a priest had murdered someone, and confessed to it, would he be turned in to the authorities and/or removed from his pastoral duties? I honestly don't know. It's a good question.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:28 AM
:shrug:

I am not now nor have ever been a Roman Catholic, so I'm not the best person to ask. I'm just giving what I think is their rationale behind it. I suspect that they would treat murder differently, but if a priest had murdered someone, and confessed to it, would he be turned in to the authorities and/or removed from his pastoral duties? I honestly don't know. It's a good question.

my feeling is that the priest would get turned over to the authorities. Not a lot of priests murder people, so it would just seem like a fluke, bad priest. But apparently a lot of priests molest kids, so many in fact that exposing all of them would embarrass the church into oblivion and would also put a sizeable dent in the number of priests around because many of them would be in prison/murdered in prison for child abuse.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:29 AM
my feeling is that the priest would get turned over to the authorities. Not a lot of priests murder people, so it would just seem like a fluke, bad priest. But apparently a lot of priests molest kids, so many in fact that exposing all of them would embarrass the church into oblivion and would also put a sizeable dent in the number of priests around because many of them would be in prison/murdered in prison for child abuse.

Eh. So far there isn't a whole lot of evidence that the prevalence is higher than the general population. I'll agree that it is much more embarrassing when it's a priest doing it, because we all hold them to a higher standard, whether we're religious or not, and whether we're doing it consciously or not.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:29 AM
Even if there is not a lot of priests that abuse children, the church's handling of the matter basically says "we don;t think child abuse is that bad of a problem". I don't get how they could be silent on this issue but be so vocal about a politician's voting record. But that's just me I guess.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:31 AM
Eh. So far there isn't a whole lot of evidence that the prevalence is higher than the general population. I'll agree that it is much more embarrassing when it's a priest doing it, because we all hold them to a higher standard, whether we're religious or not, and whether we're doing it consciously or not.

I thought someone in this thread (noddy?) said it was 5% of priests are pedos. Someone else (gomertree? remmy?) posted something saying that priests were no more likely to be pedos than anyone else, but the numbers they used to make that statement came from the catholic church itself, so I really wouldn't trust that info. They have an incentive to lie here.

Lucy
04-12-2010, 10:33 AM
:shrug:

I am not now nor have ever been a Roman Catholic, so I'm not the best person to ask. I'm just giving what I think is their rationale behind it. I suspect that they would treat murder differently, but if a priest had murdered someone, and confessed to it, would he be turned in to the authorities and/or removed from his pastoral duties? I honestly don't know. It's a good question.
I am not a Catholic, either, but I believe that the privacy if confession is considered extremely sacred, and that if the only evidence that the priest had murdered was his own confession, his confessor (is that the noun?) would not turn that information over to authorities. As I said somewhere else, I believe the church currently has an exemption to the confidentiality rules if the priest hearing a confession beleives the person to be likely to commit a grave crime in the future (such as murder) but not for stuff that has already happened. Maybe a Catholic would like to correct me or elaborate.

And I agree with Sam that there is a difference between a case where someone says "I sinned and I regret it and will pray and better myself so I won't do it again" and a case where someone says "the church is wrong, this should be allowed". I can see why the latter is more likely to lead to excommunication from an organization that believes we are all sinners.

Lucy
04-12-2010, 10:35 AM
By the way, I don't think the only evidence against pederast priests was their own confessions. I think there were also accusations by the victims and their families. That shouldn't be handled like a confession. So maybe my whole point is moot.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:41 AM
my feeling is that the priest would get turned over to the authorities. Not a lot of priests murder people, so it would just seem like a fluke, bad priest. But apparently a lot of priests molest kids, so many in fact that exposing all of them would embarrass the church into oblivion and would also put a sizeable dent in the number of priests around because many of them would be in prison/murdered in prison for child abuse.
Well, unfortunately for the CC, their protection of priests has made a sizeable dent in the number parishioners.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Well, unfortunately for the CC, their protection of priests has made a sizeable dent in the number parishioners.

On the other hand, that should reduce the needed number of priests.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:42 AM
I am not a Catholic, either, but I believe that the privacy if confession is considered extremely sacred, and that if the only evidence that the priest had murdered was his own confession, his confessor (is that the noun?) would not turn that information over to authorities. As I said somewhere else, I believe the church currently has an exemption to the confidentiality rules if the priest hearing a confession beleives the person to be likely to commit a grave crime in the future (such as murder) but not for stuff that has already happened. Maybe a Catholic would like to correct me or elaborate.

And I agree with Sam that there is a difference between a case where someone says "I sinned and I regret it and will pray and better myself so I won't do it again" and a case where someone says "the church is wrong, this should be allowed". I can see why the latter is more likely to lead to excommunication from an organization that believes we are all sinners.
ok, sure, you don't play by the rules, you're off the team.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:42 AM
On the other hand, that should reduce the needed number of priests.

touche

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:44 AM
I am not a Catholic, either, but I believe that the privacy if confession is considered extremely sacred, and that if the only evidence that the priest had murdered was his own confession, his confessor (is that the noun?) would not turn that information over to authorities. As I said somewhere else, I believe the church currently has an exemption to the confidentiality rules if the priest hearing a confession beleives the person to be likely to commit a grave crime in the future (such as murder) but not for stuff that has already happened. Maybe a Catholic would like to correct me or elaborate.

And I agree with Sam that there is a difference between a case where someone says "I sinned and I regret it and will pray and better myself so I won't do it again" and a case where someone says "the church is wrong, this should be allowed". I can see why the latter is more likely to lead to excommunication from an organization that believes we are all sinners.
Well, in my catholic days I recall discussing the sacredness of confession in grade school and used the example of pending murder. I believe that we were told that a priest would have to be turned in in this case. Which to me is why priest should be turned in for abuse that occurred since it has been long known that they will repeat the offense.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:44 AM
deeds, not words

http://www.flickscribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/megaforce.jpg

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:44 AM
On the other hand, that should reduce the needed number of priests.
Or they should start allowing women priests.

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 10:45 AM
Which to me is why priest should be turned in for abuse that occurred since it has been long known that they will repeat the offense.:link:?

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:46 AM
Well, in my catholic days I recall discussing the sacredness of confession in grade school and used the example of pending murder. I believe that we were told that a priest would have to be turned in in this case. Which to me is why priest should be turned in for abuse that occurred since it has been long known that they will repeat the offense.

Was that known in the 60s and 70s?

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:46 AM
Or they should start allowing women priests.

Then maybe they could have the enviable growth rate of Methodists.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:48 AM
Senator:
"I have some very good thoughts on public policy and women's health..."
Catholic Church:
"Get outta here, you baby murderer!!!!!"


Priest:
"oops- I molested a kid. my bad. I won't do it again"
Catholic church:
"that's ok, pobody's nerfect. let's try this again, this time in Indiana"
Same Priest:
"oops- I molested a kid. my bad. I won't do it again"
Catholic church:
"that's ok, pobody's nerfect...

...and the cycle continues. Does this seem like a good organization to you? Why or why not?

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:50 AM
I thought someone in this thread (noddy?) said it was 5% of priests are pedos. Someone else (gomertree? remmy?) posted something saying that priests were no more likely to be pedos than anyone else, but the numbers they used to make that statement came from the catholic church itself, so I really wouldn't trust that info. They have an incentive to lie here.
What is the abuse rate in other realms. BTW, I read in Newsweek that the number of credible abuse cases in the US catholic church was only six last year. I have a really really hard time believing this, but it could be that they have buckled down extra hard on the opportunities priests have with kids. I doubt there is a parent out there who would let their child be alone with a priest these days so that must help.

Jack
04-12-2010, 10:50 AM
I could be wrong but when a Catholic is excommunicated he simply needs to cease doing the offensive action and go to confession to be in communion again.

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 10:50 AM
Senator:
"I have some very good thoughts on public policy and women's health..."
Catholic Church:
"Get outta here, you baby murderer!!!!!"


Priest:
"oops- I molested a kid. my bad. I won't do it again"
Catholic church:
"that's ok, pobody's nerfect. let's try this again, this time in Indiana"
Same Priest:
"oops- I molested a kid. my bad. I won't do it again"
Catholic church:
"that's ok, pobody's nerfect...

...and the cycle continues. Does this seem like a good organization to you? Why or why not?I'm really surprised you're struggling with this concept as much as you are...

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:51 AM
I could be wrong but when a Catholic is excommunicated he simply needs to cease doing the offensive action and go to confession to be in communion again.

I think you're right.

Lucy
04-12-2010, 10:51 AM
Well, in my catholic days I recall discussing the sacredness of confession in grade school and used the example of pending murder. I believe that we were told that a priest would have to be turned in in this case. Which to me is why priest should be turned in for abuse that occurred since it has been long known that they will repeat the offense.

Was that known in the 60s and 70s?I believe it was not known in the 60s and 70s. As I said above, I believe that the Catholic church, the psychiatric profession, and the general public believed that sexual orientation could was malleable and that undesirable ones, like homosexuality or pedophilia, could be treated. God knows enough gays were forced into horrible treatments over it back then. Stanley, wasn't that still common until the late 70s or 80s?

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 10:52 AM
it could be that they have buckled down extra hard on the opportunities priests have with kids.This is correct. Priests are now very cautious about being alone with children now, and probably avoid it where possible. This is common sense and I would expect has been instructed by the bishops.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 10:53 AM
Was that known in the 60s and 70s?
The church had to know it better than anyone since they were dealing with it all the time. There was an abusive priest at our school who was caught (by my mom) molesting a boy. He was sent to another diocese. I recall my parents having inherent knowledge that he would repeat the offense and them being outraged that they would just send him somewhere else where there were kids. We don't always have to read a report to "know" things.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 10:54 AM
I'm really surprised you're struggling with this concept as much as you are...

It's just silly to me. That's why I'm not a catholic anymore. If anyone else wants to stay a part of that organization, I don't care. I follow the arguments you guys are making. I just don't buy into what the church says.

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 10:55 AM
It's just silly to me. That's why I'm not a catholic anymore. If anyone else wants to stay a part of that organization, I don't care. I follow the arguments you guys are making. I just don't buy into what the church says.You don't buy into the difference between "I know this is wrong, but I cannot stop doing it" and "You think this is wrong, but I don't care, I think it's right and I am going to try to make it/keep it legal so that everyone can partake in this activity"? Wow.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 10:58 AM
I believe it was not known in the 60s and 70s. As I said above, I believe that the Catholic church, the psychiatric profession, and the general public believed that sexual orientation could was malleable and that undesirable ones, like homosexuality or pedophilia, could be treated. God knows enough gays were forced into horrible treatments over it back then. Stanley, wasn't that still common until the late 70s or 80s?

As an aside, what treatments are used currently to "cure" pedophiles, if any? And are they similar to what was used to try to "cure" gays? I imagine the psychological consequences might be somewhat similar, being asked to repress a similar, if distinct, urge.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 11:00 AM
I believe it was not known in the 60s and 70s. As I said above, I believe that the Catholic church, the psychiatric profession, and the general public believed that sexual orientation could was malleable and that undesirable ones, like homosexuality or pedophilia, could be treated. God knows enough gays were forced into horrible treatments over it back then. Stanley, wasn't that still common until the late 70s or 80s?
Not exactly. Thanks to the summer of 69, there began to be an awareness of gayness as normal. So yes, you still could find "treatments" for gays then, but you could also find therapists who were accepting. Definitely by the 80s you could find therapists who advertized themselves as gay friendly. So the old guard existed, but the new crop was growing fast.

As far as pedophilia is concerned, it's hard to forgive the church for what the general public might believe when compared to their own experiences. The church denied all the early claims. And yet they would get more claims. They must have had inherent knowledge based on numbers that the pedophiles would strike again.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 11:02 AM
As an aside, what treatments are used currently to "cure" pedophiles, if any? And are they similar to what was used to try to "cure" gays? I imagine the psychological consequences might be somewhat similar, being asked to repress a similar, if distinct, urge.
I believe there are treatments to cure pedophiles that involve shocking the penis. But actually, few believe that you can cure a pedophile.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 11:03 AM
You don't buy into the difference between "I know this is wrong, but I cannot stop doing it" and "You think this is wrong, but I don't care, I think it's right and I am going to try to make it/keep it legal so that everyone can partake in this activity"? Wow.

oh no, I get the difference. If you don't agree with the general precepts of an organization, and the leadership of the organization doesn't allow for lay-people to have input into the doctrines, what the hell are you doing in there?

As an outsider looking in, and having grown up in the church, I find it silly for the leaders of the church to put so much emphasis and enforcement on the senator thing, yet so little punishment on priests abusing kids. I'm not saying the senators should have stayed in the church, just that the church was very quick to apply its own rules to them, and did not try to protect children at all.

Listeria
04-12-2010, 11:03 AM
Well, in my catholic days I recall discussing the sacredness of confession in grade school and used the example of pending murder. I believe that we were told that a priest would have to be turned in in this case. Which to me is why priest should be turned in for abuse that occurred since it has been long known that they will repeat the offense.
The meaning of "long ago" is probably exactly the crux of the much of the disagreement there has been in this thread. But also, it's hard to imagine a case in which a confession to a priest included a plan to do it again, in the sense that would make it analogous to a "pending murder". Confessing a past murder and expressing remorse and indicating a hope to never to such a thing probably wouldn't cause a priest to go to the authorities, unless perhaps it became an ongoing pattern with the person doing the confessing...?
I originally mentioned the privacy of confession as an example of a separation between a priest's knowledge and the idea of going to the aurthoties about a serious matter when someone's bad conduct is KNOWN. My own guess is that confession is probably NOT how most bishops learned of most cases of or allegations of abuse.

Probably all would agree that NOW there would be little excuse for not involving authorities in these situations. I hope they have some sorrt of standard protocol now for contacting them at some early point in their own knowledge of a possible situation.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:03 AM
Not exactly. Thanks to the summer of 69, there began to be an awareness of gayness as normal. So yes, you still could find "treatments" for gays then, but you could also find therapists who were accepting. Definitely by the 80s you could find therapists who advertized themselves as gay friendly. So the old guard existed, but the new crop was growing fast.

As far as pedophilia is concerned, it's hard to forgive the church for what the general public might believe when compared to their own experiences. The church denied all the early claims. And yet they would get more claims. They must have had inherent knowledge based on numbers that the pedophiles would strike again.

I'm not sure how the hierarchy of the Catholic church works. Would the people who were bouncing them around necessarily know why they were bounced there before? Were they keeping a database of why priests were moved such that these patterns could be sussed out?

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:04 AM
I believe there are treatments to cure pedophiles that involve shocking the penis. But actually, few believe that you can cure a pedophile.

Put me down as in favor of penis shocking for pedophiles.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:05 AM
oh no, I get the difference. If you don't agree with the general precepts of an organization, and the leadership of the organization doesn't allow for lay-people to have input into the doctrines, what the hell are you doing in there?

As an outsider looking in, and having grown up in the church, I find it silly for the leaders of the church to put so much emphasis and enforcement on the senator thing, yet so little punishment on priests abusing kids. I'm not saying the senators should have stayed in the church, just that the church was very quick to apply its own rules to them, and did not try to protect children at all.

In fairness, it's not like the "senator thing" is all that common. As far as I'm aware, Kerry hasn't been excommunicated. Teddy never was, either.

Listeria
04-12-2010, 11:05 AM
I believe there are treatments to cure pedophiles that involve shocking the penis. But actually, few believe that you can cure a pedophile.
I belief there are approaches that have not yet been taken for mitigating the whole problem if not curing the individual of the affliction.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 11:05 AM
In fairness, it's not like the "senator thing" is all that common. As far as I'm aware, Kerry hasn't been excommunicated. Teddy never was, either.

Madonna was, IIRC

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Put me down as in favor of penis shocking for pedophiles.I saw on SVU that they have some drugs they can give pedophiles to basically kill their sex drive.

Lucy
04-12-2010, 11:06 AM
Not exactly. Thanks to the summer of 69, there began to be an awareness of gayness as normal. So yes, you still could find "treatments" for gays then, but you could also find therapists who were accepting. Definitely by the 80s you could find therapists who advertized themselves as gay friendly. So the old guard existed, but the new crop was growing fast.

As far as pedophilia is concerned, it's hard to forgive the church for what the general public might believe when compared to their own experiences. The church denied all the early claims. And yet they would get more claims. They must have had inherent knowledge based on numbers that the pedophiles would strike again.Do you think Catholic bishops were more likely to believe the "old guard" or the "new crop"?

I believe there are treatments to cure pedophiles that involve shocking the penis. But actually, few currently believe that you can cure a pedophile.ifyp

Lucy
04-12-2010, 11:08 AM
I belief there are approaches that have not yet been taken for mitigating the whole problem if not curing the individual of the affliction.Like not allowing an unchaperoned man to be alone with a child? I think the church is moving in that direction.

I saw on SVU that they have some drugs they can give pedophiles to basically kill their sex drive.I gather that can be successful.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:12 AM
I gather that can be successful.

So long as you make sure the pedophile keeps taking his drugs.

Lucy
04-12-2010, 11:16 AM
So long as you make sure the pedophile keeps taking his drugs.I think some seek out drug treatment. It must be horrible to be sexually attracted to children.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:18 AM
I think some seek out drug treatment. It must be horrible to be sexually attracted to children.

No offense Lucy, but I feel the same about you poor people who are sexually attracted to men. ;)

Lucy
04-12-2010, 11:20 AM
No offense Lucy, but I feel the same about you poor people who are sexually attracted to men. ;)But I assume you are grateful your wife is in that category. ;)

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:22 AM
But I assume you are grateful your wife is in that category. ;)

Well, I mean, I suppose I could live with it if she were just a really good actor.

Listeria
04-12-2010, 11:23 AM
Like not allowing an unchaperoned man to be alone with a child? I think the church is moving in that direction.

I gather that can be successful.
Pedophiles in general:

Somewhere in sex education class... in additional to how to handle being approached by an adult for intimate contact, also teaching "if you have ever had thoughts of activity with a child or someone much younger than you, or if you experience this later in life, there are places### for you to go to help you work on not acting on these thoughts. Acting on such urges causes terrible harm to most* of the people who are molested. But it will bring harm to you as well. Most likely you WILL end up caught and it will ruin your life**. And there have been people who when they realized the victim him or herself was a witness to what they had done, panicked and killed them to hide what they had done and ended up on death row.*** Any individual can work on ways to avoid doing this kind of harm."

etc. etc.

* I know people who would say they were not particularly damaged by their specific experience. This is why I said most rather than all.

** give example of this from the classes own culture's recent history.

*** give further examples of same.

###: we currently don't have enough visible "places" for such people to go to get help in coping with what they have been cursed with.


Further: voluntary castration on the table, pardon the expression

etc.

Yeah, the chaperoning, why not.

SamTheEagle
04-12-2010, 11:27 AM
The Catholic church also opposed castration, chemical or otherwise, which complicates matters a bit.

Listeria
04-12-2010, 12:17 PM
Maybe someday they can come around to at least chemical castration for all offenders...?

DeadActorII
04-12-2010, 12:47 PM
The problem here is that God specifically gifts only a few with the ability to be celibate. For this organization to require all priests to be celibate, without regard to a specific Godly calling or giftedness, is preposterous, and they are now dealing with the consequences of going against God.

Wasp
04-12-2010, 12:51 PM
I think others have already pointed out that this issue thrives because many in our culture use it as an excuse to vent their anti-Catholicism.

It's an excuse from the pro-abortion crowd and the pro-gay marriage crowd to hide the real reasons they despise Catholics.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 12:52 PM
The problem here is that God specifically gifts only a few with the ability to be celibate. For this organization to require all priests to be celibate, without regard to a specific Godly calling or giftedness, is preposterous, and they are now dealing with the consequences of going against God.

maybe all priests could be chemically castrated? Since they aren't going to be having sex anyway, it's not really birthcontrol.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 12:53 PM
I think others have already pointed out that this issue thrives because many in our culture use it as an excuse to vent their anti-Catholicism.

It's an excuse from the pro-abortion crowd and the pro-gay marriage crowd to hide the real reasons they despise Catholics.

yeah, no one is genuinely upset that kids were abused and the CC covered it up. It's all a front.

Uncle Ted
04-12-2010, 12:55 PM
The problem here is that God specifically gifts only a few with the ability to be celibate. For this organization to require all priests to be celibate, without regard to a specific Godly calling or giftedness, is preposterous, and they are now dealing with the consequences of going against God.Not sure I follow. What's the relationship between celibacy and pedophelia? Are you suggesting the former causes the latter?

The Drunken Actuary
04-12-2010, 01:00 PM
Not sure I follow. What's the relationship between celibacy and pedophelia? Are you suggesting the former causes the latter?

I kind of figured it was like prison. Lots of gay sex by dudes that would never do it on the outside. So a priest is kind of living in a cage of celibacy and the easy 'escape' is with little altar boys who will be too afraid to tell anyone. I'm sure some priests bang broads and adult men too but you don't hear about that because that's not abuse and they don't speak up (why would they).

Celibacy is just not a natural state for a human so I'm sure it has to mess with their heads.

Wasp
04-12-2010, 01:01 PM
yeah, no one is genuinely upset that kids were abused and the CC covered it up. It's all a front.

Pretty much. If you are more concerned with some abuse that happened 30 years ago rather than abuse that continues to happen today, be it muslim mistreatment of young girls or even the sex trafficing that goes on in the USA today as asian or other women are sold into prostitution then it shows it is more a hatred of the institution that made mistakes and made changes (but really wasn't much different than any other institution dealing with children) rather than true concern for the victims.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 01:07 PM
When I was an altar boy, a priest tried to corner me one day as I donned my alb. I had to duck under his arms to get out of the corner and away from him.

There was another priest who looked kinda like steven segal (sP?) who was totally flamingly gay and was also a huge egomaniac. He pleated his robes neatly in the back and when he entered the sacristy before mass, would say "GOOD MORNING, FATHER X!!!!?!?!!??" to us altar boys if we didn't show him the proper attention at his entrance. During the sign of peace part of the mass, this same priest would walk up and down the aisle, but wouldn't shake people's hands. Instead, he would simply point his hand out as he swished down the aisle, mincing and prancing, like he was deflecting god's grace from on high to the rest of us plebians.
Another priest would be totally drunk during the mass, giving long rambling sermons.

At my high school, the head monk would leave during the school day with one of the boys who played on the football team. Wonder where they went and what they did?
At my high school, another monk-teacher was "removed" because he touched the boys inappropriately.

I had a pretty large sample size of catholic in my life and a very large percentage of them were very mal-adjusted individuals. I'm not saying that the gay one was wrong to be gay or anything, just he must be mal-adjusted to have chosen that profession given his obvious orientation.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 01:08 PM
Pretty much. If you are more concerned with some abuse that happened 30 years ago rather than abuse that continues to happen today, be it muslim mistreatment of young girls or even the sex trafficing that goes on in the USA today as asian or other women are sold into prostitution then it shows it is more a hatred of the institution that made mistakes and made changes (but really wasn't much different than any other institution dealing with children) rather than true concern for the victims.

newsflash- no one on this board who is being critical of the catholic church likes the stuff you listed, either!

Wasp
04-12-2010, 01:15 PM
newsflash- no one on this board who is being critical of the catholic church likes the stuff you listed, either!

Really? I haven't seen many threads about that stuff. I don't see anyone doing anything about those victims. And those are victims who you could actually help but people are more interested in attacking a church because those people are anti-religion, pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage. The church is being victimized by people who are merely opportunists for a problem that existed 30 years ago.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 01:19 PM
Really? I haven't seen many threads about that stuff. I don't see anyone doing anything about those victims. And those are victims who you could actually help but people are more interested in attacking a church because they are anti-religion, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights. The church is being victimized by people who are merely opportunists for a problem that existed 30 years ago.

well, if there's a thread on those other items I may have missed it. Some of us on here who are critical of the catholic church are critical of all religion in general. Religions are usually always pro-life and anti-gay, but that's not the reason I don't like them.

And the problem didn't just happen 30 years ago. You could probably find that it's still going on now.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 01:23 PM
Not sure I follow. What's the relationship between celibacy and pedophelia? Are you suggesting the former causes the latter?
They have nothing to do with each other. There are LOTS of people committing abuse out there. One in three girls will be violated by the time she is 18 and one in six boys. Just like this thread began, this isn't just a CC problem. But the CC had a particularly abhorrent way of handling it.

Wasp
04-12-2010, 01:27 PM
well, if there's a thread on those other items I may have missed it. Some of us on here who are critical of the catholic church are critical of all religion in general. Religions are usually always pro-life and anti-gay, but that's not the reason I don't like them.

And the problem didn't just happen 30 years ago. You could probably find that it's still going on now.

Will there always be child abuse? Of course. Just like there will always be DUI's, murder, terrorism and burglary. The fact that you isolate one institution for your outrage despite that on a scale of magnitude there are much bigger problems going on right under your nose shows that your outrage is based on your personal bias rather than true concern for victims or the greater good.

Does the Catholic church advertise on craigslist the new young asian girls brought in to your local spa for your happy ending? You have more sexual abuse and in essence slavery going on and advertised in public and yet all of you people prefer to focus on select transgressions that for the most part happened years ago because it fits in to the rage of your political views against religion.

Hugh Jass
04-12-2010, 01:30 PM
Will there always be child abuse? Of course. Just like there will always be DUI's, murder, terrorism and burglary. The fact that you isolate one institution for your outrage despite that on a scale of magnitude there are much bigger problems going on right under your nose shows that your outrage is based on your personal bias rather than true concern for victims or the greater good.

Does the Catholic church advertise on craigslist the new young asian girls brought in to your local spa for your happy ending? You have more sexual abuse and in essence slavery going on and advertised in public and yet all of you people prefer to focus on select transgressions that for the most part happened years ago because it fits in to the rage of your political views against religion.

much bigger problems? I bet the kids who got abused think it's big enough

I'm not against prostitution, but I am against human trafficking and slavery. Consenting adults only, please.

Sure, child abuse will always exist. That doesn't excuse the church from covering up their problem though.

Wasp
04-12-2010, 01:33 PM
But the CC had a particularly abhorrent way of handling it.
The CC and most religions are in the business of forgiveness. They aren't in the business of prosecution.

The victims, if they were interested in prosecution, should have gone to the police.

Did the CC make mistakes? Yes. And I bet some of the isolated cases have been exaggerated and generalized because that's what plaintiff lawyers do for big judgments and because many people dislike religion and want the world to worship people like Obama, pro-abortion and pro-marriage - when it suits his needs - rather than Jesus. Secularism is a powerful church.

Wasp
04-12-2010, 01:42 PM
That doesn't excuse the church from covering up their problem though.

I think they more than paid the price for their mistakes. I suppose you could even give them a lifetime sentence of community service.

When you confess something in a church, they really are not a culture of doling out punishments (although in the past they also made that mistake - and I'm sure the critics here were critical of that too - imagine if they had burned some pedophiles at the stake).

If you want to be mad then be mad at law enforcement. It's their job to punish people. Be mad at the sinner who committed the crime. Maybe try to understand that an enabler is often a victim too, a victim because they love and forgive and sometimes naively believe that people who do bad things will change if you give them another chance.

Danjew
04-12-2010, 01:45 PM
The CC and most religions are in the business of forgiveness. They aren't in the business of prosecution.

Same could be said about schools (they are in the business of education not in the business of prosecution). This doesn't excuse principals and administrators from covering up sexual abuse in schools or by teachers.

Same goes for the CC. I don't care what they are trying to do or what their goals are. If abuse is going on they should be ensuring it ends and to notify the police.

The victims, if they were interested in prosecution, should have gone to the police.

The church officials who know of abuse going on by priests have an obligation to go to the police as well and notify the family of the events.

Avos 5:13
There are four types of contributors to charity. One who wants to give but does not want others to give--is begrudging of others. One who wants that others should give but does not want to give--begrudges himself. One who wants that he as well as others should give, is a chassid. One who want neither himself nor others to give, is wicked.

DeadActorII
04-12-2010, 01:59 PM
I kind of figured it was like prison. Lots of gay sex by dudes that would never do it on the outside. So a priest is kind of living in a cage of celibacy and the easy 'escape' is with little altar boys who will be too afraid to tell anyone. I'm sure some priests bang broads and adult men too but you don't hear about that because that's not abuse and they don't speak up (why would they).

Celibacy is just not a natural state for a human so I'm sure it has to mess with their heads.

:iatp:

Kool-Aid Man
04-12-2010, 02:38 PM
Does the Catholic church advertise on craigslist the new young asian girls brought in to your local spa for your happy ending? You have more sexual abuse and in essence slavery going on and advertised in public and yet all of you people prefer to focus on select transgressions that for the most part happened years ago because it fits in to the rage of your political views against religion.
I don't frequent shady massage parlors, even if I personally would never want to have a happy ending, because I don't want to financially enable or condone abuse in any way. My personal feeling is that, for me, attending a RCC church would be supporting those who allowed abuse to occur, because the church has not yet rooted all of the enablers from their positions. Now, admittedly that's easy for me to say, because I don't even believe in God anymore, but my wife does and she won't ever attend a RCC service again either.

See, the biggest problem isn't that the abuse occurred. The biggest problem isn't even that the abusers were transferred and allowed to abuse again. I can understand both of those things as human weakness and ignorance. No, the biggest problem is that the leaders who failed to protect the innocent young have not all been removed from their leadership roles.

Any other business in the world would have fired the people whose actions and inactions led to this level of harm and liability. It sends a message that your company does not believe that what they did was in keeping with the image you are trying to project.

Feel free to bump this thread when the RCC does that.

Stanley Milgram
04-12-2010, 03:31 PM
The CC and most religions are in the business of forgiveness. They aren't in the business of prosecution.Forgiveness of priests. And blaming the victim. The victim has been the least of the CCs concerns.

The victims, if they were interested in prosecution, should have gone to the police.You make it sound so easy. Imagine that you are a child who was molested by the "most respected" member of the community. You think the police would have given them the time of day. Things are different now. Back then, the ONLY ones who could possibly have accepted the priest's guilt was the church itself. And the church denied the child the ability to confront it.

Did the CC make mistakes? Yes. And I bet some of the isolated cases have been exaggerated and generalized because that's what plaintiff lawyers do for big judgments and because many people dislike religion and want the world to worship people like Obama, pro-abortion and pro-marriage - when it suits his needs - rather than Jesus. Secularism is a powerful church.Are you willing to support the CC at the expense of victims by claiming that the cases were exaggerated? You are so wrong to do that. Some "follower of Jesus". Unfortunately many of the cases have never been reported because the victims often got even more traumatized by church followers who don't give a damn about them.