Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Ming]

So one more time Ben... You claimed that Priests were above the US law. You are WRONG! You just made it up.

They are subject to the same US laws that everybody else in this country (besides those with REAL diplomatic immunity) are.

[Boris Godunov]

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?

What the hell are you talking about?

First, of course there are going to be fewer convictions than accusations. There isn't a single crime in the world for which that isn't true. Duh. That doesn't mean all accusations for which there aren't convictions aren't true.

Second, you yourself made the utterly arbitrary claim that "half" of those accused were actually guilty. In the U.S. alone there have been over 4000 accusations against priests, that would (according to you) mean that ~2000 priests were guilty. Since ~300 have been convicted, the math would indicate that even by your own arbitrary and self-serving estimate, there are "more out there," as you say. That's completely disregarding the fact that most of those 4000 accused only escaped prosecution because they were dead by the time the allegations came to light.

****, even the Church acknowledges many more priests committed abuses than have actually been convicted. They've been apologizing for them left and right lately, remember? They have also acknowledged (as with these recent German revelations) that they quietly shuffled priests away when they were accused and did not hand them over to the authorities (which they now say they WILL do).

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

Since priests can and have been incarcerated for their crimes, this is an utterly meaningless distinction on your part. No, Ben, priests do not have immunity from the local laws and they certainly can be convicted AND incarcerated for them.

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.

And what does this have to do with whether or not priests actually can be prosecuted, convicted and punished by local law? Nothing. Not even the Church asserts such, so you're way out on this one. This isn't even a matter for argument, you're just plain wrong.

[Nikolai]

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

Baptism can be made irrelevant. If you reject Christ, your baptism becomes moot. Same with ordaining.

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

Semantics. Priests need their authority from God. He can take it away.

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.

This is the standard which priests ought to be appointed, and the standard they need to meet as long as they are priests. If they sin in such a grave way as pedophilia is, they are no longer worthy of priesthood. Priests are supposed to be the shepherds and example to the people. If they no longer can be that, they need to go. Simple as that.

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.

Merely? Did you just say MERELY? Sin is a grave matter, for God and for humans. God can forgive an individual, no matter how grave the sin. But as shepherds and examples to the people, priests cannot commit such a grave sin as this and continue functioning as priests. They can remain Christians, follow Christ, get forgiveness from God and humans, if they repent, but they can under no circumstance remains shepherds of the people.

[Ming]

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.

Again. more made up crap... The church can and does remove priests for the reason of serious crimes.

What are you going to make up next?

[Theben]

HFS. Ben never fails to amuse.

[Asher]

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?

Priests do not have equal access to girls. There are also far more complex psychological concepts for you that you will never, ever grasp. A staggering number of people who sexually abuse others were sexually abused themselves, which is one reason why same-sex molestation is more frequent. You're way out of your league here in discussing the issue, but it is suffice to say you are wrong.

If you are going to repeat your assumption that celibate priests who molest boys are gay, you're going to need to cite some reputable sources.

Ok, if you are molesting children, you are no longer celibate, let's get that straight.

Apparently you don't even know what molestation can entail.

Lets say you shove a (holy) broomstick up the ass of your favourite altarboy and fondle his micropenis. Am you still celibate? Yes.

Celibacy means you refuse to engage in sexual intercourse and relationships. Maybe this is why priests prefer to kiddlefiddle rather than engage in normal, adult relationships.

I'd wager that the molesters are also not maintaining their discipline in other ways.

Your deep, personal experience with child molesters is duly noted. Thank you for your input.

If we assume that heterosexual molestors are equally as likely to molest girls as boys

What the **** do you not understand? Your premise is wrong. Child molestation is an act independent of adult sexuality.

[rah]

I think this thread will be an everlasting tribute to Ben's stupidity. He has really out done himself. Priests are not subject to US laws. Unbelievable.

[Wezil]

Meh. Pretty typical Ben fare actually.

I'm perplexed why you guys continue to humour him and give him what he wants.

[rah]

Most of us live in urban areas where we're not subject to such blatant stupidity and faith quite so often. I don't travel much to Mississippi or the back country in Tennessee, so listening to hillbilly morons like Ben can be entertaining sometimes.

[Wezil]

It just encourages him.

[Ming]

It just encourages him.

Maybe, and maybe not. At some point in threads like this, BK ends up looking SOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid (which is indeed the case in this thread now) that he usually stops posting in it... only to begin his moronic comments all over again in a different thread. So while it's probable that he will stop looking even more stupid in this thread simply by not posting in it again, we will get our chance to "discuss" this same topic or a similar one in a different thread.

[Wezil]

The problem with that Ming is that you presume Ben realises how stupid he looks. I don't think he does.

[MikeH]

Plenty of people are ignorant, and many of them post ignorant stuff on Apolyton. It's the fact that his ignorance is most often used to try and excuse his bigotry that gets people worked up. That and his complete inability to read and understand simple posts or use any kind of logic.

But I think it's mainly the bigotry.

[germanos]

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.

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.

I'm happy to learn that I was de facto wrong. For the record: I hadn't any doubt that Ben's assertion was de jure wrong.

[DanS]

Yeah... but we don't have to "assume" that priests were violating children. That is a FACT. And the Church covered it up... and that is a FACT... and the church did nothing except give many of them a chance to do it again by moving the priests around... and that is a FACT.

The facts are what they are. But it's important to note that they need no embellishment.

There's a tendency to pile on by describing the church in ways that bear little relation to reality. I don't fault anyone in this -- most people, even catholics, simply may not know how things work. For instance, because each bishop has a great deal of autonomy in dealing with church issues, each diocese dealt with child abuse in its own way. In fact, most diocese didn't make it a practice to move around priests accused of pedophilia. Sometimes these facts get lost in the shuffle during these kinds of discussions.