Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Where does it say that homosexuality is defined by attraction to adult men? I don't see it. Attraction to men and boys is the definition of homosexuality. Or, as I might refer to it in more pc terms, same-sex attraction, no?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

If it were done for reasons of power, we'd expect to see equal numbers of boys and girls. We do not see this.

[giblets]

Where does it say that homosexuality is defined by attraction to adult men? I don't see it. Attraction to men and boys is the definition of homosexuality. Or, as I might refer to it in more pc terms, same-sex attraction, no?

You could define it that way, but it's misleading because attraction to pre-pubescent boys isn't related to attraction to males who have gone through puberty. They don't belong in the same category. Please make the distinction. The 10% figure you came up with is related to estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to adult men, not estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to little boys.

If it were done for reasons of power, we'd expect to see equal numbers of boys and girls. We do not see this.

Are boys and girls in the church in equally vulnerable positions?

[DanS]

Gee... so you consider sexually abusing children a simple "personal failing". I don't think so.

I don't think you are even trying to have a discussion here, so I'll stop. You're free to have a meaningless exchange of words with the village idiot.

[Ben Kenobi]

You could define it that way, but it's misleading because attraction to pre-pubescent boys isn't related to attraction to males who have gone through puberty.

First of all, I don't think it works that way. What you are saying is that those who are sexually attracted to boys are not also sexually attracted to men. Are you saying that there is no one who is sexually attracted to both?

They don't belong in the same category. Please make the distinction. The 10% figure you came up with is related to estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to adult men, not estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to little boys.

Oh? All it says is those with 'same-sex' attraction, whatever that means.

Are boys and girls in the church in equally vulnerable positions?

Yes.

[Asher]

You could define it that way, but it's misleading because attraction to pre-pubescent boys isn't related to attraction to males who have gone through puberty. They don't belong in the same category. Please make the distinction. The 10% figure you came up with is related to estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to adult men, not estimates of the percentage of men who are attracted to little boys.

It's an easy mistake for someone like Ben to make. He proclaims to be heterosexual, which means attraction to females from 1 month old to 100 year old. He's basically admitted to being a pedophile with this latest salvo of logic.

[giblets]

First of all, I don't think it works that way. What you are saying is that those who are sexually attracted to boys are not also sexually attracted to men. Are you saying that there is no one who is sexually attracted to both?

No, I'm saying that attraction to little boys is not a sign that someone is attracted to men. If a priest molests a boy it is entirely possible that they don't find adults attractive, and also possible that they prefer adult women to adult men. Your conclusions are either inspired by ignorance or bigotry.

[Elok]

Where does it say that homosexuality is defined by attraction to adult men? I don't see it. Attraction to men and boys is the definition of homosexuality. Or, as I might refer to it in more pc terms, same-sex attraction, no?

Where does it say that heterosexuality is defined by attraction to adult women? I don't see it. Attraction to women and girls is the definition of heterosexuality. Or, as I might refer to it in less PC terms, stay away from my eight-year-old niece, you sick heterosexual bastard.

Oh, Asher beat me to it, more or less. Ah well, it could stand to be said twice.

[Ming]

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.

Again... you are just claiming they are homosexuals with absolutely no proof. Again, do you understand the difference between pedophiles and homosexuals. You are a complete bigot, trying to blame the entire problems with the church on homosexuals, while the real blame falls on the pedophiles and the church elders that protected them. The problem is with the CATHOLIC PRIESTS and those that protected them.

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.

You just keep making crap up... and trying to place the blame where it doesn't belong because you are a complete bigot. The only batting 1000 here is that they were all PRIESTS!

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

Gee... an anomoly... I guess that means ALL THE OTHER CASES that they weren't trying to protect the church. You are a total moron.

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.

You also can define them by their actions... especially what they do in difficult times. And we see what they did... they covered it up for years... very defining! They can pay lip service to their teachings all they want, but in the end, they allowed children to suffer one of the cruelest crimes.

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

No... not discussed... you made crap up and ignored everything else. You offered no real proof. And you ignored studies done by the same church that you defend.

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

I guess that proves that you are still an idiot.

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.

So you are really claiming that only the pedophiles themselves knew? That no Bishops knew about it... are you claiming that Bishops aren't authorities in the church. Can you prove that no Cardinals knew...
You have no facts. If anything the facts are against you since Bishops DID KNOW!

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.

Yeah... they care about changing the Church... they want them subject to the same laws as the rest of us... they want the church to STOP PROTECTING priests who abuse children. The comments you make are only opinions from your warped mind. Again, you are blaming the messenger instead of the real problem... BAD PRIESTS and those that covered it up.

The Times is leading the charge.

Nahhh... just following the story. If there wasn't a story, you know, priests raping children and higher ups covering it up, they wouldn't have anything to write about.

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

Even if all the alligations aren't true, enough of them are to show a pattern of abuse and coverup.
Anybody with a brain can see that.

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

And how can you defend the priests that prey on their flock, and those that covered it up.
The RCC has protected these evil priests, and covered up the story. How can you defend that.
And how can you attack those that are trying to actually protect the victims.
You seem to not care one bit for the children. Wait until you have some, then maybe you will actually start to care about them instead of defending those that would molest them.

[Ming]

I don't think you are even trying to have a discussion here, so I'll stop. You're free to have a meaningless exchange of words with the village idiot.

I was just using your own expression... From reading your post, you seemed to be minimizing the offense because social norms were slightly different years ago. My point was that even if social norms were a little different, the catholic church's definition of sin at the time were far different than social norms. During that time, it would have been a sin for married couples to perform the same acts that ordained priests performed with innocent children. This was no trivial offense... Yeah, preaching forgiviness is one thing, not protecting innocent children is completely something else. They had an obligation to protect their flock against such evil... and they didn't.

[Ming]

And BK... Boys are in a far more vulnerable position to priests than girls in the catholic church, so stop your lying and made up crap.

[giblets]

ming the merciless :applause:

[SlowwHand]

Ming Unplugged.

[Zevico]

The only thing this debacle demonstrates is that the Vatican should not be considered a sovereign country. If the Pope commits a crime he ought to answer to the law of the land like anyone else, and he ought to be subject to the same criminal investigation as anyone else in his position--assuming an investigation is necessary. This is not a matter for Catholics to decide, or for their detractors: in truth it ought to be a matter for the Italian police and the Italian judiciary. The Pope of a modern faith should not be a leader of a state; he is a leader of a faith.

[Nikolai]

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

I just have to comment on this Ben. Disagreement is not wrong. Christians are not always in agreement, and that's pretty human and natural too.