Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[DanS]

So... abuse of their own flock... children... was not taken very seriously by the church.

Yes, this is a sad fact in many cases (not all cases, and perhaps not even a majority of cases, however). On the other hand, US society in general is way more stringent nowadays. Nowadays we have things like sex offender registries and the like. Poke your zip code into a web site and see where all the statutory rape offenders are, etc.

I mean, come on. You participated in the happy horse**** of the 60s and 70s in general society. The church was not immune to those societal attitudes. Then you had Vatican II, which ushered in a lot of changes in the church and internal discipline was de-emphasized for a while in exchange for experimentation.

I think you look at this too simply. In actual fact, things like threatening victims to be silent is not in the interest of the church. I'm sure there were many ill-considered reasons for justifying a cover-up otherwise. Rationalizing is easy that way -- it attracts all sorts of whacky reasons.

Regarding the media, I don't know that the media had so much of an impact. The proximate cause in the US was the lawsuits that threatened bankruptcy at some of the more prominent diocese. As I recall, the low point for the church was closely tied to the legal implosion of the Boston archdiocese in 2002. Boston is still working through those problems -- and not all that cleanly either. But other diocese such as the Washington archdiocese had relatively few scandals, but were still saddled with the shame.

[Ming]

Yes, this is a sad fact in many cases (not all cases, and perhaps not even a majority of cases, however). On the other hand, US society in general is way more stringent nowadays. Nowadays we have things like sex offender registries and the like. Poke your zip code into a web site and see where all the statutory rape offenders are, etc.

Whether the US society (and other countries since this is a GLOBAL issue) was less stringent or not really doesn't make a difference to me. We are talking about an institution that was sworn to protect it's flock. If anything, the church should have considered it far worse than it was perceived in the general world. We are talking about Priests... trusted leaders in the church, abusing innocent children... breaking their vows, and hurting their flock. How could they take that lightly.

I mean, come on. You participated in the happy horse**** of the 60s and 70s in general society. The church was not immune to those societal attitudes. Then you had Vatican II, which ushered in a lot of changes in the church and internal discipline was de-emphasized for a while in exchange for experimentation.

I don't buy it. The Church was supposedly our moral guidence... they told us what was right and wrong.
They still don't allow birth control so they did and still do ignore social attitudes. They represented gods word on earth to it's followers. So their coverup of this serious problem was simply wrong no matter what the general population thought.

I think you look at this too simply. In actual fact, things like threatening victims to be silent is not in the interest of the church.

Excuse me? Whose interest was it in then and why did they do it. Excumunication was threatened... victims were told to keep it quiet or be forced out of their church and faith. It was done to protect the priests and the church. It's that simple. They had the power, and they used it in an evil fashion.

I'm sure there were many ill-considered reasons for justifying a cover-up otherwise. Rationalizing is easy that way -- it attracts all sorts of whacky reasons.

And all of them dead wrong... The church preaches the difference between good and evil... they know better. They knew it was wrong. The fact they covered it up proves that.

Regarding the media, I don't know that the media had so much of an impact. The proximate cause was the lawsuits that threatened bankruptcy at some of the more prominent diocese.

Most of those lawsuits multiplied when others that were abused saw they had a way to get back at their attackers. The media coverage of it helped break the log jam. People who had be afraid to come foward before because of threats or just the fear of being exposed as victims could come forward because of the attention of the media. The media let them know they COULD DO IT! So I totally disagree with you when you say the media didn't have much of an impact.

[DanS]

We are talking about an institution that was sworn to protect it's flock. If anything, the church should have considered it far worse than it was perceived in the general world. We are talking about Priests... trusted leaders in the church, abusing innocent children... breaking their vows, and hurting their flock. How could they take that lightly.

I agree with all of this. However, it's worthwhile to recognize the context in which these decisions were made. We're really not that far apart in this discussion. My opinion is just that you're thinking too linearly and definitively!

The Church was supposedly our moral guidence... they told us what was right and wrong.

This was and is true. However, when was the last time the church actually took a tough line on a personal failing? The church has been mainly in the forgiveness business, not the enforcement business. The church may speak out against against contraception, but if you go into the confessional, I seriously doubt you would be berated by the priest for confessing to using contraception. They would be berating people all day long, if so!

[Ming]

I agree with all of this. However, it's worthwhile to recognize the context in which these decisions were made. We're really not that far apart in this discussion. My opinion is just that you're thinking too linearly and definitively!

I don't think that thinking that Priests who abused innocent children should be treated harshly by the church as too linearly and definitively. Screw the "context"... they were raping and abusing CHILDREN.
Some of the acts performed by priests on little children were even considered immoral acts if performed by married couples.

This was and is true. However, when was the last time the church actually took a tough line on a personal failing? The church has been mainly in the forgiveness business, not the enforcement business. The church may speak out against against contraception, but if you go into the confessional, I seriously doubt you would be berated by the priest for confessing to using contraception. They would be berating people all day long, if so!

Gee... so you consider sexually abusing children a simple "personal failing". I don't think so. We are talking about a very serious offense here... with innocent victims. You don't think the priest hearing a confession like that would take it lightly and not be even a little stern with person... especially if it was a fellow priest. And sure, the church is in the forgiveness business... but they shouldn't be in the cover it up and threaten the victim to shut up business.

The church dictated to their members almost everything about their flocks sex lives... what was moral or not. And yet, we had ordained priests doing horrible and sinful acts on innocent children that they were in an authority position to... I don't care what time frame... or the context... it was simply wrong and evil... and not something to cover up just because it would make the church look bad.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

No, I'm claiming that 90 percent of the molestation is conducted by the 10 percent of the priests. Ie, if we believe that 10 percent of the total priests are gay, that subset has 90 percent of the molestation.

[Ben Kenobi]

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

I have this thing called work. Do they have it in Europe?

[giblets]

No, I'm claiming that 90 percent of the molestation is conducted by the 10 percent of the priests. Ie, if we believe that 10 percent of the total priests are gay, that subset has 90 percent of the molestation.

Did you make up these numbers or do you have evidence to support your claim that 10% of priests are attracted to male adults and they have been involved in 90% of molestation???

[Ming]

Don't worry... he's just making crap up again. He want's to claim the homosexuals are the problem, not priests.
It won't work. Priests were the problem...

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Right, because we all know that homosexuals are incapable of being pedophiles, right.



No true scotsman indeed.

I might just as well say that no true priest who keeps their vows is a pedophile. But unlike you I'd rather own up to the fact that they are priests, just as much as they are homosexual.

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.

You are right, it doesn't make a difference. However, when trying to trace the source of the problem, it's like epidemiology. If 90 percent of your cases are drinking from the same well, perhaps the problem might just be the well? It's the same with homosexuality. Get rid of the well and you solve 90 percent of the problem.

And again, it was covered up only to protect the church, NOT the actual victims... something you seem to keep forgetting.

At least in the wisconsin case, it was covered up to protect the ass of the priest and the bishop!

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

No, but you must take it into account when gaging the organisation or it's members. The Church is not defined by her members, but by what she teaches.

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

It's right up there in the thread. We already discussed it.

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.

Yet, I was not a Catholic. I'd say the same thing now as I would have 5 years ago.

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.

I have followed the facts. The facts say that these priests were guilty of abuse. The facts say that the authorities within the Catholic church were NOT informed.

They have more interest in the children than the RCC has.

Oh, I'm sure. As sex objects.

They are trying to force the church into changing their ways... while the church was busy covering it up.

Oh they care about changing the Church. They want the Church to think just like they do. Don't you get it Ming? They are angry that the Church does not play ball and rejects their beliefs particularly around the sexual revolution. They have been trying to get in for 50 years.

You seem to think the Times is the only media reporting on this

The Times is leading the charge.

that thousands of people don't call the abuse hotline in days after the church started it

Which means that the allegations are true? Or is this a witchhunt?

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.

Well sure. But how do you reconcile attacking your brothers and sisters?

[BlackCat]

No, I'm claiming that 90 percent of the molestation is conducted by the 10 percent of the priests. Ie, if we believe that 10 percent of the total priests are gay, that subset has 90 percent of the molestation.

This is quite funny - more than 10 % of RC priests are child molesters. Actually, since those doing the 10 % part are not that busy, it could easily be 40-50 % of priests that are child molesters.

[BlackCat]

I have this thing called work. Do they have it in Europe?

My comment wasn't on when you post, just on what you post.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you make up these numbers or do you have evidence to support your claim that 10% of priests are attracted to male adults

This is a good question. All I'm doing is applying the numbers from the general population that have been quoted by gay-friendly sources. You are right to challenge the number, but I am erring on the side of caution.

and they have been involved in 90% of molestation???

Yes. I contend that 90 percent of the molestation involves boys.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is quite funny - more than 10 % of RC priests are child molesters. Actually, since those doing the 10 % part are not that busy, it could easily be 40-50 % of priests that are child molesters.

You are aware that most molestors molest many, many victims?

[giblets]

This is a good question. All I'm doing is applying the numbers from the general population that have been quoted by gay-friendly sources. You are right to challenge the number, but I am erring on the side of caution.


Yes. I contend that 90 percent of the molestation involves boys.

Molesting a boy does not necessarily mean that someone is attracted to adult men. Pedophilia generally doesn't revolve around sexual characteristics but rather the characteristics of children.

[giblets]

Also why assume that priests are molesting children for sexual gratification?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation_for_rape