Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Pedophilia is not about homosexuality, it is about control. The Catholic Church doesn't allow altergirls, otherwise I'm sure you'd see a bunch of hetero pedophilia.

[Asher]

Where did I say that they were above the law? I simply said they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under the Vatican.

[Asher]

Yes, they can't just kick him out after he's been ordained. BTW, something like 90 percent of the abuse cases are from homosexual priests abusing boys.

Ben, seriously, this is both offensive and demonstrably wrong.

Pedophilia is not about sexual orientation. Straight, married men molest young boys as well. As EmpFab says, it's about control.

This has been researched and discussed at length in academia and by professionals.

Did you know that young boys are far more similar to girls than men? Gay men are attracted to men, not to children. Pre-pubescent boys are not men, they do not have any of the attributes that are attractive to gay men (which develop with elevated levels testosterone and other hormones during puberty). They are children.

Celibate priests who molest children but are not attracted to or having sex with men are not gay. Simple as that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Where did I say that they were above the law? I simply said they are not under the jurisdiction of the US. They are under the Vatican.

Priests who violate a US law in the US are subject to US courts. End of story. You have little knowledge of jurisdictional law it appears.

[Boris Godunov]

Priests who violate a US law in the US are subject to US courts. End of story. You have little knowledge of jurisdictional law it appears.

Nor the fact that it takes international treaties to secure diplomatic standing, which Catholic priests don't have. That's the BK way: even if it ain't a law, he just makes it up!

Holy ****, Ben, you've lost any shred of credibility in this argument you might once have had (not that you necessarily had any). That you think clergy should have "diplomatic immunity" in their own countries is both idiotic and, frankly, offensive to the extreme.

There's no atrocity you won't excuse of the Church, apparently.

But just wait until the (inevitable) day they finally either start ordaining female priests or sanction priests marrying! Then I bet you'll throw a hissy-fit.

[Nikolai]

Your quote is very uninformative. Yes, of course he would be kept on. You can't de-ordain someone, just as you cannot de-baptise someone. What were his responsibilities? The article doesn't tell me anything. He, btw, still is a part of the Church. It says he was put in therapy, etc, so it's not as if they simply did nothing.

Of course you can deordain someone who rape children. Just because the Catholic Church haven't done much of it, it's quite possible.

Aaron's sons was ordained as priests, like their father. Two of them were struck down by the Lord for their sins.

Then we have Titus 1, where Paulus is telling us what is expected by an elder an overseer, which of course is also what has been used as a standard for most, if not all, churches over the years:

6An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7Since an overseer[b] is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
10For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain. 12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.

And then of course you have 1st Timothy 3:

Overseers and Deacons

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[a] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. 5(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) 6He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11In the same way, their wives[b] are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

12A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. 13Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.

14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

I'm sure there are much more too. But this should be more than enough proof that a priest has to follow certain rules. Just as people who once was baptized, can reject Christ and be cast out of the church of the believers, so can an ordained priest of God become unfit for duty, and as such be needed to be deordained, cast out of their job, which they clearly are no longer in any position to do.

[germanos]

Why are criminals deported rather than tried in the USA? The priests are not under the jurisdiction of the USA. They are under the Vatican.

Even though I loath the thought, I'm afraid Ben is right. How many priests have been arrested, let alone convicted and sentenced in a civil court over this? The power of religious institutions is far bigger then should be.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course you can deordain someone who rape children. Just because the Catholic Church haven't done much of it, it's quite possible.

You cannot de-ordain someone just as you cannot de-baptise someone. This is a theological issue, wrt to sacramentals.

Aaron's sons was ordained as priests, like their father. Two of them were struck down by the Lord for their sins.

They were killed. This is different then saying that they lost their authority in the priesthood by the higher ecclesial authority.

Then we have Titus 1, where Paulus is telling us what is expected by an elder an overseer, which of course is also what has been used as a standard for most, if not all, churches over the years:

This is the standard by which priests ought to be appointed. It gives no instructions as to how the church ought to discipline priests who have fallen astray.

I'm sure there are much more too. But this should be more than enough proof that a priest has to follow certain rules. Just as people who once was baptized, can reject Christ and be cast out of the church of the believers, so can an ordained priest of God become unfit for duty, and as such be needed to be deordained, cast out of their job, which they clearly are no longer in any position to do.

This is a different issue. The priests are not rejecting Christ, they have merely sinned against him. In this particular case, the priest is repentent. If those who sin against Christ as Christians cannot remain Christians, then there would be no one in the Church at all. You are correct that a priest could be removed if he desired to leave altogether or if he were to deny Christ. Those are the only criteria.

[Imran Siddiqui]

germanos: Aside from the fact that he's wrong. Here's one:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/22/local/me-oc-priest22

A retired Roman Catholic priest from Orange County who escaped prosecution six years ago for allegedly molesting a teenage boy has been arrested on suspicion of molesting another boy in the 1990s, authorities said Tuesday.

The abuse occurred between 1992 and 1995 while Lyons was assigned to St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Costa Mesa, prosecutors said.

Criminal charges in an earlier case against Lyons were dropped after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003 invalidated as unconstitutional a California law that had extended the statute of limitations on child molestation to include decades-old cases.

[Ecofarm]

You are correct that a priest could be removed if he desired to leave altogether or if he were to deny Christ. Those are the only criteria.

So being gay is denying Christ but wanting sex with children is not. Ok. Great.

[Ben Kenobi]

Pedophilia is not about sexual orientation. Straight, married men molest young boys as well. As EmpFab says, it's about control.

If this were the case, we would expect to see roughly equal proportion of boys to girls. If it were merely about control, why is it consistantly that boys are far more likely to be abused?

Did you know that young boys are far more similar to girls than men? Gay men are attracted to men, not to children. Pre-pubescent boys are not men, they do not have any of the attributes that are attractive to gay men (which develop with elevated levels testosterone and other hormones during puberty). They are children.

Again, why then don't we see an equal number of girls and boys abused? If boys were simply 'exactly like girls', then the reasoning would be that we would expect to see no difference in the ratios. Instead we see that boys are far more likely.

Celibate priests who molest children but are not attracted to or having sex with men are not gay. Simple as that.

Ok, if you are molesting children, you are no longer celibate, let's get that straight. I'd wager that the molesters are also not maintaining their discipline in other ways.

Anyways, the numbers are simple. Clearly the majority of the molestors are homosexual because the ratio is 85 percent boys.

If we assume that heterosexual molestors are equally as likely to molest girls as boys, that would give us 15 percent boys, 15 percent girls, and would leave 70 percent of the molestation occured by homosexual men abusing boys. Of course, this also assumes that they abuse about the same number of children per molestor, which may not be the case. What is more likely is that we have a 20/80 split, being that 80 percent of the molestation is committed by 20 percent of the molestors.

[Ming]

Even though I loath the thought, I'm afraid Ben is right. How many priests have been arrested, let alone convicted and sentenced in a civil court over this? The power of religious institutions is far bigger then should be.

Many priests have not only been arrested, but convicted in criminal court. Priests are NOT above US laws and can be tried in US courts.

Just BK making stuff up again.

And as far as not being able to get rid of priests... more made up stuff.

Beach Priest Forced to Quit over Sexual Misconduct
Five Claim Sexual Incidents Occurred

By Steven G. Vegh and Christina Nuckols
Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.)
August 2, 2003

A Virginia Beach Catholic priest who was accused by five people of sexual misconduct has been forced by Bishop Walter F. Sullivan to resign from the priesthood, a diocesan spokesman announced Friday at a Richmond news conference.

The Rev. Dwight E. Shrader, who led St. John the Apostle Catholic Church in Sandbridge, is undergoing therapy at an unidentified institution outside Virginia, said the Rev. Pasquale Apuzzo, who is Sullivan's spokesman.

Shrader, 47, is the fourth priest in 12 months to be expelled by Sullivan for sexual misconduct.

So Ben, what new stuff are you going to make up?

[Boris Godunov]

Even though I loath the thought, I'm afraid Ben is right. How many priests have been arrested, let alone convicted and sentenced in a civil court over this? The power of religious institutions is far bigger then should be.

Hundreds of priests have been prosecuted and convicted for abuse. While this is a fraction of the total perpetrators, thanks to Vatican obstructionism, it shows that the local law certainly does have jurisdiction.

That the Church covered up crimes and shielded its members from prosecution doesn't mean that it was legally right for them to do so.

Not even the Church would *officially* make the claim that their officials are immune from prosecution. That's just a patently stupid idea.

[Ben Kenobi]

So being gay is denying Christ but wanting sex with children is not. Ok. Great.

WTF?

Ecofarm, I explicitly said earlier that priests who are homosexual can't be drummed out for the same reason. Priests are priests.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hundreds of priests have been prosecuted and convicted for abuse. While this is a fraction of the total perpetrators, thanks to Vatican obstructionism, it shows that the local law certainly does have jurisdiction.

So, let's see. You are asserting that because your witchhunt hasn't caught a sufficient number of priests, that there are more out there? Wouldn't this be evidence to the contrary that there are far fewer actual convictions than there are accusations?

Not even the Church would *officially* make the claim that their officials are immune from prosecution. That's just a patently stupid idea.

Never said so. I said they would, and have been tried. Whether they are incarcerated is another matter entirely. Incarceration!=conviction.

As for it being a patently stupid idea, I refer to you in many instances where secular governments have executed priests. This has happened in China, in the former soviet union, and even in the UK. The reason this exists is because of prior actions by secular governments to kill priests.