Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Jon Miller]

Ben, a lot of these cases are from over 15 years ago. At that time, it was almost entirely boys involved. Might not that suggest that it was 'availability' rather than homosexuality?

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

So Italy would be willing to fight an endless civil war against her citizens and Catholics around the world? Why do you assume Catholics see their individual nationalities as our primary authority? Some do, I'm sure, but many do not. And many would rather see the pope independent of national constraints than simply subject to Italy.

We've been here before at many different periods, and invariably, it ends up destroying the occupying power.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, a lot of these cases are from over 15 years ago. At that time, it was almost entirely boys involved. Might not that suggest that it was 'availability' rather than homosexuality?

If that were true, we'd expect to see molestation of girls increase, but that's not been the case. Abuse has gone down dramatically, as the molestors have been found and the seminaries have gotten better at screening them.

[Kidlicious]

It's natural, but it doesn't mean that it's ideal. And there's a difference between honest disagreement, and making it personal by bringing family into it.

I thought Ming understood that this is a line you do not cross.

You're not one to talk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oddly Cold wizards article actually fails to report the number of boys as compared to the number of girls.

[Ming]

It's natural, but it doesn't mean that it's ideal. And there's a difference between honest disagreement, and making it personal by bringing family into it.

I thought Ming understood that this is a line you do not cross.

And exactly what line did I cross... and what family did I bring into it. Did I attack your parents, you siblings... Your wife... NOT! The point about having children is that it gives you a different mind set, or a different view on life. I was attacking YOU, for not having a clue.

Do you have children... of course not, so how could I possibly being attacking them or your "family"

As usual, you just try to throw straw dogs out their to deflect discussion about the real idiotic things you make up. I did not bring 'your family" into it...

So keep being a bigot, making crap up, defending the church that is a support group for pedohiles...
We know who is the real person that is crossing the line.

[rah]

Gee, if a priest tried to head up a young girls retreat, it would never have been allowed, but if it was just boys were involved no one batted an eye. Between that and that in the past there were no alter girls is why most of the victims were boys and not girls. Only an idiot would argue anything different. Claiming that since it more boys than girls proves that it was done by homosexuals is even more hilarious but very Benish and not totally unexpected.

[Ming]

So. You don't regard the fact that 90 percent of the molestation is by men to boys as evidence that perhaps homosexuality might be part of the problem?

Not one bit... again, do some research or at least read some of the posts here. There is a big difference between being a homosexual and being a pedophile. Your ignorant assumptions just prove how stupid you really are.

And yes, this applies to heterosexuals too. You can be heterosexual and a pedophile, just as you can be homosexual and a pedophile.

True enough... however, just because a pedophile likes little boys doesn't make him a homosexual. Again, do some research before you open your mouth again and look even stupider.

How am I a bigot? I've not said that only homosexuals are pedophiles, as Asher's quite rightly said my logic presumes that pedophiles can be heterosexual and homosexual. That the vast, vast majority of abuse is conducted by men to boys and not men to girls, I regard as evidence that the molestors are in fact homosexual and same-sex attraction is the root of the problem wrt to priest molestors. Deal with those who have these attractions and you deal with the root of the problem.

This comment is just more proof that you are a bigot... Again, the only thing these pedophiles have in common is that they are priests... NOT homosexuals. The problem is that the PRIESTS are PEDOPHILES.
Deal with the pedophiles and you deal with the root of the problem.

What am I making up here? Do you contest that the vast majority of abuse cases are between men molesting boys?

Priests have more access to boys... that is a simple fact no matter what crap you want to make up.

Hardly an anomaly. Or are you arguing that there's nothing statistically significant about the wisconsin case? Does this mean there wasn't a coverup at all.

And I can find cases where it is a cover up... see Cold Wizards post as an easy example. So you pointing to one case proves nothing. There are more cases where it is indeed a cover up.

Yes the Church has her problems, but they do not condone molestation and are replacing or have replaced the bishops involved. This is what you would expect of an organisation that is dealing with the problem, not trying to avoid the hard things that must be done.

Yeah... they only dealing with the problem 30 or more years too late... and after they could no longer hide it. They should have done the "hard things" a long time ago, but they didn't. They were acting as a support group for pedophiles while ignoring their flock... innocent children.

The studies which showed 1-4 percent? You need to read your studies again Ming.

You need to learn how to read and understand what is actually being said in the study...

Who's the idiot here? The person who despises the Church yet calls himself Catholic, or the person who likes the Church and eventually chose to join?

The idiot is the one that ignores reality and defends the actions of the church when those actions were clearly wrong and evil.

You are right that some of the bishops did in fact know. However, some of the bishops were involved with the abuse and were complicit which is why they did not report back to the Vatican for 40 years, until after things got shuffled out. I'm glad to see that you are finally placing the blame where it belongs on the Bishops who were aware and chose to conceal their own actions.

I'm placing the blame on the institution... which totally deserves it. You have claimed that the leaders of the church didn't know... well what the hell is a bishop, a low level priest. NO, they are leaders of the church... THEY KNEW, and many covered it up. And not just those were doing it themselves.

I know I'm right about it because I know what they really care about is not these children, but that the church doesn't agree with them on the important issues. I would wager that these are identical to the issues that you have chosen to follow and reject church teachings.

Again... just making crap up... using your idiotic opinions to make bad assumptions. Again... I think those that are trying to get to the truth and bring the story to the attention of their readers is doing more to protect future children than those that are trying in vain to defend the church's actions.
Ignoring what the church did is putting future children at risk.

Which is what they reported back in 1996. They must be pretty busy to recycle a 15 year old story.

Gee... and there are still more stories coming out every day... this has been going on for years, and it's time that all the facts come out and that it stops. The church can not continue being a support group for pedohiles.

Baloney. We don't know anything about the abuse hotline just from the number of calls made.

Gee... the abuse hotline is just one example of many that there has been a pattern over the years that priests have been abusing children that they were enrusted too, and the church was covering it up.

I haven't defended them. I've defended the Church.

Yep... the church that acted as a support group for pedohiles...

I haven't defended the bishops. I'm the only one who's called the bishops out. I've defended the Church.

We've all called out ALL those that have kept the secret and covered it up. This you are the only one calling bishops out is total crap... just more made up stuff.

What, people like the Panzerkardinel? You folks are the ones calling for his resignation, rather then cheering him on as he gets rid of the dissenting priests and bishops.

His actions are a day late and a dollar short. Now that's all out in the open, he does the right thing.
Tell that to the children that got abused because of the lack of action by the entire church.

I'm not going to even dignify that with a response Ming. At least one of us has the class not to bring our families into it.

You are the one with no class.... read my other post in response to your lame attempt to blame me for bringing your family into it. I will continue to attack you, because it's so easy with the stupid stuff you post. I've never attacked your family, and have no need to. You are big enough target on your own.

[Asher]

Right. So in saying that some men are attracted to boys and men, you conclude that I'm attracted to girls and women? Sorry Asher. Just because you want to call me a pedophile doesn't make it so. By your logic, you are a pedophile too.

God, you are dense.

You were defining homosexual to define someone attracted to males regardless of age.
I am using your definition to define heterosexual to define someone attracted to the opposite sex regardless of age. You proclaim to be a heterosexual, so there you go.

[Ming]

You are being too logical Asher... logic is something that Ben doesn't use. He just makes stuff up and throws it all together in a non logical way and thinks it's a real argument.

[Asher]

This is an assertion without any evidence. Are you claiming that none of the molestors are homosexual? That's a pretty big leap.

Dense, dense, dense.

Homosexual and heterosexual are normative terms that describe one's sexual attraction to someone of sexual maturity, or at least your own age.

The molesters may or may not be homosexual in that they are attracted to mature men, they may or may not be heterosexual in that they are attracted to mature women...the reality is this is not an important point because they are pedophiles.

What everyone has been trying to explain to you is homosexuals, heterosexuals, and pedophiles are distinct cases. The adult sexuality of any pedophile is not at all relevant to pedophilia. Many pedophiles are straight, married men...and apparently many more are celibate.

[Ben Kenobi]

And exactly what line did I cross... and what family did I bring into it.

You said that I wouldn't know what it was like until I am a parent. You are making some pretty big assumptions about my life, Ming.

Did I attack your parents, you siblings... Your wife... NOT! The point about having children is that it gives you a different mind set, or a different view on life. I was attacking YOU, for not having a clue.

You were making it personal. I really don't want to get into this with you Ming. Call me clueless or whatever. But don't drag my family into it, please. Can you do this Ming? It's all I ask.

[rah]

Do you have any children? Or a wife?

[Ben Kenobi]

Only an idiot would argue anything different. Claiming that since it more boys than girls proves that it was done by homosexuals is even more hilarious but very Benish and not totally unexpected.

So where's the line, rah? Is a priest who abuses 11 year olds a pedophile and a priest who abuses 12 year old is a homosexual? That's a pretty fine line.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you have any children? Or a wife?

Not yet. That's all I'm going to say about it at this point.