Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[rah]

The church has to re-earn my devotion. They have done the opposite over the last twenty years. A man's beliefs must continually be questioned or they lose their importance.

If we discover that the POPE was the originator of one of the cover up memos he should be required to step down. THEN maybe I'd believe that they are truly interested in protecting the children. And you should do a little more careful research. Boys are not the only ones that were abused. But then in Benverse I'm sure it's only boys because even if it was reported in 100 different newspapers, it was just made up.

[Nikolai]

No, Popes are popes till they die.

I remember it was debated at the end of John Paul II's reign if he should resign. It's not common, but it's not impossible. And popes have been dethroned before, so while not exactly what we're talking about here, you are in fact wrong.

BTW, the Norwegian altar boy case I reported earlier today, has had some development. The Church did as mentioned remove the bishop from office(another thing you were wrong about Ben, he's not going back into the church hierarchy ever again, the guys in charge said), but they didn't notify the authorities, as the case is 20 years old, and therefore beyond the age of obsolescence. But now the Norwegian police say that's not neccessarily true in all cases.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the Catholic Church is willing to protect criminals and hide the truth, then how can you trust them at all? I sure can't.

It appears you have once again painted yourself in a corner. Or Asher has been right all along and you feel an affinity with pedophile priests for other insidious reasons.

[rah]

FTW, not that he'll ever acknowledge it.

[Kidlicious]

Oh, so you want to defend that preposition. Fine. I'd love to see evidence that pedophilia is a problem for the priests moreso than the general population. We discussed that before, and the evidence is pretty clear that there are fewer priests. This would mean that the Catholic church is not only not producing pedophiles, but that it is somewhat successful in screening them out of the priesthood.

I'm certain that you are the only one who has decided that the evidence suggests that catholic priests are less likely than others to be pedophiliacs.

[Ben Kenobi]

I remember it was debated at the end of John Paul II's reign if he should resign.

And I was one of those folks who believed that he should not resign until he passed away.

It's not common, but it's not impossible. And popes have been dethroned before, so while not exactly what we're talking about here, you are in fact wrong.

Fine. I believe Popes are popes until they die. They should not be deposed, nor should they be appointed by anyone other than the College of Cardinals.

BTW, the Norwegian altar boy case I reported earlier today, has had some development. The Church did as mentioned remove the bishop from office(another thing you were wrong about Ben, he's not going back into the church hierarchy ever again,

Hmm? Where was I wrong. I was referring to the Wisconsin case, not the Norwegian case. I agree he should lose his position as Bishop. He should retain his title as priest.

[Ben Kenobi]

The church has to re-earn my devotion. They have done the opposite over the last twenty years. A man's beliefs must continually be questioned or they lose their importance.

I don't see too many devotees to Socrates today. I owe you an apology. I've entirely misunderstood where you were coming from.

If we discover that the POPE was the originator of one of the cover up memos he should be required to step down. THEN maybe I'd believe that they are truly interested in protecting the children. And you should do a little more careful research. Boys are not the only ones that were abused. But then in Benverse I'm sure it's only boys because even if it was reported in 100 different newspapers, it was just made up.

No, I'm aware it's not only boys, but that the preponderance of boys indicates that the problem not equally present among all priests in all countries.

[rah]

No, I'm aware it's not only boys, but that the preponderance of boys indicates that the problem not equally present among all priests in all countries.

Then why do you always call them homosexuals and even posted the following to justify why you were calling them gays.

So why is it always boys then and not girls?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why do you always call them homosexuals and even posted the following to justify why you were calling them gays.

Because when 10 percent of the priests commit 90 percent of the total abuse, I believe that they are the source of the problem, not the priesthood in general. And yes, grown adult men molesting boys are homosexual.

[rah]

Wait, are you claiming that 1 in every 10 priests molested children. I'll bet that's a larger percentage then the population in general.

[giblets]

And yes, grown adult men molesting boys are homosexual.

Pedophiles are not homosexuals

Spoiler:

"The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes. "

". . . many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women."

"Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that 'in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males...' "

[BlackCat]

Guess he's groggy - just a few punches more and we have a knock out

[Ming]

Yep, sure do. When over and over we see homosexual priests responsible for the abuse, I think we all know what the cause is here.

I guess you missed the story about girls being molested. You're batting a 1000 comment isn't even close to being true. Have you listend/read every complaint made over multiple continents? But one thing we do know... they are all PRIESTS... and you have no real clue about the differences between a homosexual and a pedophile. I think we all know the cause here... priests who are in a position of power and they abuse it.

So why is it always boys then and not girls?

It's not... why do you keep making this stuff up?

In the Wisconsin incident, the bishop, (also gay), covered it up for 40 years. And yet, you don't blame him. Unreal.

Then you haven't learned to read... I blame the priests, the bishops that covered it up, ANYBODY that covered it up, and the entire institution for not doing anything about it until they had to because of the media. And why should it make any diffference that the bishop was gay... STRAIGHT Bishops have covered it up as well... and they ARE ALL TO BLAME.

By attacking the one man who is doing something about it, the PanzerKardinel. Sorry, don't buy it. I'm behind Pope Benedict 100 percent, and I hope he replaces all of the dissenting bishops that are fighting him right now.

I'm attacking everybody that was involved... and if the the Pope was, him too. My attacks are across the entire institution that allowed it continue and covered it up. And again, it was covered up only to protect the church, NOT the actual victims... something you seem to keep forgetting.

Canon law is explicit that this is not permitted.

Canon law does NOT say you have to ignore facts and reality.

I did prove it. It's anywhere between 1-4 percent of priests, based on accusations, not proven cases.

No you didn't... you didn't prove anything so stop lying.

Because you keep tabs on what's going on outside of the media? Perhaps you only know what the media tells you which is why you know exactly what to think. Go read the Times, and they will tell you everything you need to know.

I go to multiple sources before I make up my own mind... and those sources include non media, as well as non traditional media. I keep an open mind and realize what bias the source brings to the table.
You on the other hand blindly believe only the church... even when the facts prove it to be wrong.
Go stick you head in the sand, and your nose up the ass of the church, and totally ignore reality.

Some of us, actually rely on other sources.

You only rely on sources that agree with you... and if the same source starts disagreeing with you, you then denounce them. You even ignored a study done by the Church... You know, the same people that you claim to believe on everything else.

Well because we know that the Times has the best interests of children at hand.

They have more interest in the children than the RCC has. They are trying to force the church into changing their ways... while the church was busy covering it up. It seems like the Times, a capitalist newspaper cares more about protecting the childrent than the RCC a religious institution sworn to protect their flock. If it wasn't for the media, the Church would still be doing the same thing, allowing even more children to be abuse. So it seems the Church doesn't have the best interests of children at hand.

What did the Times ever do to earn your faith?

You seem to think the Times is the only media reporting on this... or that thousands of people don't call the abuse hotline in days after the church started it... or that thousands of cases child abuse were covered up the church... or that abusers were moved around the country without the knowledge of the people so that they could rape and abuse some more.

I know what the Church has done to lose my faith in it. I can believe and follow the lords wishes without having to support or believe in the institution that has let it's flock down in so many ways.

[DanS]

They knew a problem existed and covered it up simply to protect the institution and NOT the victims.

This is not entirely true. There were many other reasons to cover it up -- although, of course, none sufficient in hindsight. As an example, never discount the normal bureaucratic CYA factor (personal protection at the expense of institutional protection). It's worth remembering that at one time, these types of crimes were taken much less seriously by society than they are today. And the prevailing thought in the church was that the perpetrators of these types of crimes could be rehabilitated through therapy. They thought they had science on their side too. There was a good WaPo article of a few years ago that examined these attitudes. In any event, forgiveness was stressed rather than internal church discipline.

Nowadays, priests are defrocked for activities that do not even come close to prosecution. I agree with the more stringent approach, by the way. But I can appreciate the origins of the problem.

[Ming]

This is not entirely true. There were many other reasons to cover it up -- although, of course, none sufficient in hindsight. We should remember that at one time, these types of crimes were taken much less seriously than they are today. And the prevailing thought in the church was that the perpetrators of these types of crimes could be rehabilitated. Forgiveness was stressed rather than internal church discipline.

So... abuse of their own flock... children... was not taken very seriously by the church. While the act itself may have been considered less serious by people in the general population (and I'm not sure I believe that), the situation here is that a priest violated his vows. Today, yesterday, the future, it is a serious offense... BREAKING THEIR VOWS! And you can talk about forgiveness all you want, but to simply move the priests so that they could do it again, over and over... that's not forgiviness or discipline, it's just plain WRONG!

Plus, you don't mention that victims were sometimes threatened to stay silent. A further example that the church was more important than the actual victims.

Nowadays, priests are defrocked for activities that do not even come close to prosecution. I agree with the more stringent approach, by the way.

Yeah... now that the media jumped all over them and made it an issue. Until that happened, the church stayed in coverup mode. Again, it's sad that a religious institution that is sworn to protect it's flock had to be forced to actually do so.