…and this is a 
The Catholic Church still doesn't get it
By Adrian Liston
No matter how many revelations of child sex abuse by Catholic Priests come out, the Catholic Church still doesn’t get it. Take, for example, this story told by the Archbishop of New York, in which he recounts a (probably apocryphal) encounter with an angry man at an airport.
According to the Archbishop, the ex-Catholic said that he cannot look at a Catholic Priest without thinking “sexual predator”. The Archbishop’s response is telling, as he thinks only of the “shame and damage of the wound” that had been inflicted on himself with those words, rather than the far worse damage inflicted upon countless children by the Church’s actions.
Archbishop Dolan considered yelling and swearing at the guy, but instead proceeded to excuse the Church from all misconduct — taking the common line that sexual abuse is everywhere, so the Catholic Church should not be singled out. The Church just doesn’t get it, still treating child sexual abuse as just another sin on par with consensual homosexuality, rather than as a crime. They are also ignoring their own records, which suggest that Catholic Priests are more than 100-fold more likely to be a child sex offender than an average member of the public. There is a real genuine problem of child sexual abuse within the Catholic Church that just cannot be eradicated until the Church accepts that the problem is within Catholicism itself, rather than just being a society-wide problem that has reached into the Church.
Most revealing of all is the musings by the Archbishop on the reasons why the Catholic Church is attacked over child sexual abuse. The Archbishop gives three reasons:
1. “For one, we priests deserve the more intense scrutiny, because people trust us more as we dare claim to represent God, so, when one of us do it – even if only a tiny minority of us ever have — it is more disgusting.”
I have to say, I think the Archbishop has a point here. Not about “a tiny minority”, the Church’s own figures suggest that ~9% of Catholic Priests ordained in 1970 were child sex offenders. But it is true that the crime is more horrific when the same monster who is abusing children is also telling adults in a loving consensual relationship that their act is a crime against God. The solution is simple, however – until the Church achieves some semblance of morality itself it should cease from condemning others.
2. “Two, I’m afraid there are many out there who have no love for the Church, and are itching to ruin us. This is the issue they love to endlessly scourge us with.”
Ah yes, the Church is the victim of a witch-hunt (a term which originates, incidentally, from the practice of the Catholic Church in persecuting innocent women and executing them without evidence). America does indeed have a history of Protestant discrimination against Catholics, but the child sex abuse scandal is not limited to America. There has been scandal and outcry in staunchly Catholic European countries, such as Belgium and Ireland. The rise of anti-Catholicism in these countries is not due to historic prejudice, but rather is being directly created by the actions of the Church. The Archbishop has cause and effect the wrong way around – child sex abuse is driving anti-Catholic sentiment, not the reverse.
3. “And, three, I hate to say it, there’s a lot of money to be made in suing the Catholic Church, while it’s hardly worth suing any of the other groups I mentioned before.”
This is contemptible, the Archbishop is making the outright accusation that cases of child sex abuse are being invented for profit. Once again, the Church is considering itself to be the victim rather than the culprit. Not only is this a disgusting slap in the face to all those people abused by Catholic Priests, but it is certifiably wrong. The John Jay Study, commissioned by the Catholic Church, detailed that Church investigations of sex abuse allegations found that 80% were “substantiated” and only 1.5% were “false”. So even when the Church investigates itself, using a Canon Law process that is judged by the local Bishop and does not allow for forensic evidence, they agree that only the tiniest minority of cases are made up.
The Church needs to stop assuming that the outrage against child sexual abuse is confected for political or monetary gain. The outrage against child sexual abuse is genuine outrage at the horrific nature of the crime itself.
I have suggested before the five steps that the Church needs to take in response to these crimes:
1) Admit that child rape is a wide-spread crime being perpetrated within the Catholic Church by a substantial proportion of Priests, reaching across continents and as far back as records exists.
2) Admit that this child rape has nothing to do with homosexuality or secularism or any such, and is instead a problem disproportionately within Catholicism.
3) Admit that the Church knew for a long time that this was a problem but chose to cover it up, and that Church doctrine is still preventing cases being reported directly to the secular authorities.
4) Admit that the Church has spent, and still spends, far more time devoted to petty concerns such as preventing contraception than it has to preventing child rape by its own members.
5) Fix the damn problem. Sell a few pieces of art and pay restitution to the victims. Make it official Church policy to report every incident to the police. Investigate Priests with the zeal shown during the Spanish Inquisition. Shut up about other people's "sins" until the Church is clean. Change those aspects of doctrine or theology that drive child rape. Show some humility.
Unfortunately, decades into the scandal the Church is still failing to grasp step 1.
Comments
Posted by: HaggisForBrains
|
March 20, 2011 7:34 AM
Thanks for putting into words what I am sure many of us feel. The Catholic Church is in denial, and until it accepts full responsibility it will not progress. I cannot improve on your post, you have said it all. Thank you.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 20, 2011 7:38 AM
His Archbishopness misses another important point. The Church's official policy is to protect and support child rapists. Many people find this reprehensible. This is especially disgusting when at the same time the Church claims to be the supreme authority on morality. Hypocrisy, particularly moral hypocrisy, is not well accepted, especially when it's as blatant as the RCC's hypocrisy on child rape.
Posted by: amondial
|
March 20, 2011 7:39 AM
I don't remember seeing the disgusting situation expressed this well, this clearly or this succinctly before. Bravo.
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 20, 2011 7:41 AM
Well written, Adrian.
Re this:
I note it's an admission that the Catholic Church is not poor.
Posted by: Klatu
|
March 20, 2011 7:44 AM
I agree completely, excellent piece.
But until the RCC can fix itself:
Parents, please don't leave your children alone with these dirty old men.
Posted by: hayzee42
|
March 20, 2011 7:48 AM
Before retirement, I was a parole agent in a pre-release unit. I interviewed in depth a lot of inmates, and investigated their post-release living arrangements. I never dealt with any Catholic priests, but there were Protestant ministers.
In fact, it seems to be a dirty little secret, but in my experience virtually all pedophiles were religious fanatics of the Christian variety. I know this is anecdotal, but I wasn't the only one who thought so. I remember one time at a training session, another parole agent got up and asked if anyone else had noticed the religious connection with child molesters. Even though it was barely 11:15 AM, the trainer immediately decided it was time to break for lunch!
Oh, and while it's probably impossible to determine a person's sexual preference for sure, I never met a pedophile, or sex offender of any stripe, who lived a homosexual lifestyle. That's anecdotal too, but I did the job for over thirty years.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 20, 2011 7:48 AM
Upon reading the archepiscopal whining that Adrian linked to in the first paragraph, I note His Archbishopness is more concerned with the prestige, dignity, and monetary solvency of his organization than the welfare of children.
Posted by: Klatu
|
March 20, 2011 7:49 AM
Oh look, it's Skeptical Atheist.
How long until you get banned this time?
Any bets?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 20, 2011 7:55 AM
Skeptical Atheist, please take your deist godbotting elsewhere. The grownups are discussing a real world issue and we don't appreciate your off-topic proselytizing.
Posted by: kariedgerton
|
March 20, 2011 7:57 AM
It's because sexual abuse is about power, not physical attraction.
Posted by: Daz
|
March 20, 2011 7:58 AM
When the "there's a lot of money to be made in suing the Catholic Church" point comes up, I always think this man's comments on the matter are worth pointing out. Hard to be quite so cynical (or, I'll admit, stay completely dry-eyed) in the face of that.
Posted by: DuckPhup
|
March 20, 2011 8:03 AM
Hmmm... this looks like a fitting place to recapitulate "what Louis CK learned about the Catholic church..."
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 20, 2011 8:15 AM
Great article!
It is really a shame how Catholic clergy, on practically all levels of hierarchy, concentrates first and foremost on pain and discomfort that accusations of child abuse bring to them. It comes up in every discussion about their crimes. It is one of the first things the pope mentions. The pain of real victims comes barely as an afterthought.
I've been to mass a lot of times in my childhood, at different churches. The innocence and goodness of children has been brought up and lauded many times. It only makes them look more hypocritical when some of their own clergy pray on that innocence and all those who kept talking about "sweet children" who will be the first in heaven are now quiet. Or worse, excusing those that commit crimes against children.
When I was at church the last time, which was a couple of years ago, I couldn't help but cringe every time the priest mentioned innocent children. Seriously, it just sounds creepy when you know that there is a substantial number of priests who only think about spoiling that innocence when they mention it. And those who don't actively participate, but decide to ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen or worse, make excuses for rapists, are not much better.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/6LlvIrU80ZUshWsrrCFtQ8aPyuRkQfc-#d3c53
|
March 20, 2011 8:17 AM
PZ-
I am surprised that you would fall for the sort of apples and oranges lying with statistics in the article that claims the "100 times" bit.
Priests compared to general population. Do you see the problem there?
How 'bout we eliminate the following from that "general population":
-Women
-People under 18 years of age.
Let's make the comparison apples to apples, and at least compare priests to a similar segment of the population - adult males. Anything less is just the sort of twisting of the numbers that you complain about others doing.
The number of pedophile Catholic priests may still be higher than the norm at that point, but at least it won't be the overblown, scary, and false "100 times" bullshit.
This is not the first time I have caught you being less than diligent with your fact-checking on an issue you feel strongly about. As a scientist, you should know that you need to be extra careful when you have an emotional stake in the data.
Posted by: Mold
|
March 20, 2011 8:21 AM
The Catholic Church is hurting. Thousands of practicing and faithful Catholics have left when it became quite obvious the Church Fathers knew of the problems, declined to act upon them, and covered up the mess.
The current Pope...and the conservative branch of the Church have been heavily implicated in the transfer of pedophiles and the extreme reluctance to include civil authorities.
In Europe, the Church is likely to lose all subsidies. In the US, the Church has to advertise to keep funding going and to con new members.
I'd tip them over the cliff. No female priests, denial of medical needs, and the derision towards the 'flock'...the Church needs to be cleaned.
Mold
Posted by: echidna
|
March 20, 2011 8:24 AM
For real, or wishful thinking?
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
March 20, 2011 8:28 AM
yahoomess at 17, are you seriously trying to claim that women never abuse children, and that, say, 15 and 16 year olds never do either?
If you are, you're at minimum making a case that the priesthood ought to be open to more groups than it is to dilute out the abusers. Making the comparison to the general population makes it MORE clear that there is rot in the way the catholic church operates, not less.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 20, 2011 8:30 AM
Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. There are still some countries in Europe that have governments heavily influenced by church. Individuals might start leaving the Church in greater numbers than before, but I'm not sure that governments will follow that quickly. Some of them seem quite cozy with Vatican and it doesn't look like a waning relationship.Posted by: Gordon
|
March 20, 2011 8:30 AM
Gosh look, they moderate their comments! I guess they just love their cloak of secrecy and have no sense of irony.
I have to agree with the (possibly ficticious) man's opening point: when I see a priest my first thought is "Has he raped any kids?" and my second thought is "if not has he covered for another priest who has?"
I think how easily the priest talked this imaginary man round rings incredibly false, just like catholic doctrine.
Posted by: amavra.mcdowd
|
March 20, 2011 8:31 AM
The documentary "Deliver Us From Evil" is also a powerful testament to the utter depravity of the Catholic church and its priests. There is a part where they are interviewing the parents of a girl who was raped when she was 8 by their priest. That single preist himself estimates that he's abused at least 100 children in his life. The father broke into tears as he described the horror and the betrayal. That the people who put the priest in charge of his church knew he had abused children before. That he had given his money to the institution that allowed his child to be violated. That the church higher ups still didn't do anything about it.
There is no excuse. The Catholic church is a criminal organization. Not all the priests are, but the structure of the religion is culpable for the unmitigated abuse and cover up. When they go on about the sanctity of the life of fetuses I can only laugh a bitter laugh. Yes, Catholic Church, you totally care about the poor children.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 8:34 AM
Thank you everyone for the positive feedback.
@hayzee42: One study did an unbiased analysis of the sexual preferences of child molesters and found that less than 1% self-identified as homosexual, which is lower than the rate in the general public: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8008535
@Skeptical Atheist: Dreaming about the afterlife is a good way to pass up on enjoying real life.
@Anonymous (who questioned the 100x figure): I wrote this, not PZ, so I take responsibility for the statistic. If you click on the link you will see my rationale and evidence for the statistic. Unfortunately an "apples and apples" comparison is not available, otherwise I would have cited that. The statistic is flawed, since different methodologies were used, but that does not mean that the statistic is flawed against Catholic Priests. In fact, it could be >100-fold, since the figure for Catholic Priests is restricted to incidents reported to the Church, recorded by the Church and found to be credible by the Church. If you can find a better study I'll use that number instead, but as a starting figure 100-fold looks reasonable.
Posted by: cazfans
|
March 20, 2011 8:34 AM
Calling Smoggy Batzrubble, paging Floyd Rubber, we need a cleanup of one 'Skeptical Athiest' in The Catlick Church still doesn't get it thread. Your fulminations in Christian love and conformity are needed immediately.
Posted by: Daz
|
March 20, 2011 8:35 AM
Yahoomess:
You might also note that it's not PZ you're accusing. The bit at the top where it says 'guest', as well as the author (who did a great job, btw, regardless of yahoomess's diatribe) having signed the piece, might be a bit of a clue. Maybe you should be a little more diligent when you (ahem) have an emotional stake in wanting to attack a particular blogger.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 8:39 AM
Adrian,
I too would like to thank you for that article. And as for Yahoomess, I would just ignore him. He does not really care about accuracy or honesty. On another thread he admitted that he cannot be bothered to read other comments, and prefers to remain ignorance. Whilst your link is not exactly another comment, I think the same attitude on his part would prevail and he will not have bothered to read it.
Posted by: joed
|
March 20, 2011 8:42 AM
His Royal Feculence The Pope said to knock-off the Catholic Bashing because there is good and bad in everyone.
The entire Mormon Tabernacule Choir sang that old spiritual hymn, "Fuck The Pope."
Now, what is a lay-person going to believe about all this.
Cap't Jack the parrot can say "fuck the pope" in 5 languages including Latin, Italian, Russian(OCS)
and German.
Posted by: lykex
|
March 20, 2011 8:57 AM
@17
First off, this is a guest post. PZ didn't write it.
Second:
Yes, let's. Instead of babbling and complaining, you should have run the actual numbers. Let's do so now, taking figures from the link and from wikipedia:
About 60% of the american population is between 20 and 65 years. Let's take them as our relevant group. I'm not sure it makes sense to exclude women entirely, since women are responsible for a not insignificant number of child abuse cases. Still, let's do that too. That only means that our number for pedophilia incidence will be artificially high.*
We then get:
250.000/ (300.000.000*0.6*0.5) = 0.2 %
So, I guess you're right. Catholic priests are only 50 times more likely to be pedophiles.*
I'm sure you feel all vindicated now.
* Assuming that women are equally likely to abuse, this trick makes the population incidence twice as high as it should be. It's interesting to note that if we correct for that, we're back at the "100 times more likely'" figure we started at. I guess those calculations weren't that for off, eh?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
March 20, 2011 8:59 AM
The church officials of course would happily chant the cliche "take the plank out of your own eye before you help your neighbor with the mote in his eye" while being absolutely oblivious to their own blindness. That's the problem with having god on your side - you're always right no matter how wrong and evil you are.
Posted by: mordnvan
|
March 20, 2011 8:59 AM
So when will all the criminals involved finally be treated as such, and thrown into the darkest hole on the planet we can find, to spend the rest of their days?
Child rape is only slightly below genocide on my list of crimes, and the church is responsible for both.
Posted by: blf
|
March 20, 2011 9:07 AM
Even if the percentage of priests who rape children was the same as, or lower than, an appropriate control group, so what? It's not so much the numbers (albeit any value greater than zero is unacceptable), but the deliberate, wilful, and knowing hiding of the problem (including threatening(at least implicitly) the victims and/or their families), made worse by continuing to allow the rapists to rape(e.g., moving them to a new area with, seemingly at best, being told to “
preypray for forgiveness”). All of which was done at an institutional level(no rouge elements here), and actively encouraged by the top level, including the current dictator.Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 9:11 AM
@blf. Damn straight. I sincerely doubt that the rate of child sex offenders in the general public (or even adult males) is as high as 10%. But one thing I do know is that in any other workplace if you found out that your colleague was raping children you would go to the police. This normal response is explicitly against Catholic Canon Law.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 20, 2011 9:20 AM
The Roman Catholic church "gets it" all right.
They will tough it out and get away with it. Add a few crying statues to buck up the faithful.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 9:27 AM
Interestingly in England the RCC, under the late Cardinal Basil Hume took a different line to that of the Vatican and put in place a policy of informing the authorities of allegations of child sex abuse by clergy and lay officials. As result the UK has seen fewer incidents of such abuse within the RCC since the policy has been in place.
The Catholic Church in other countries are now looking to adopt the English policy.
Posted by: Ed Milnisov
|
March 20, 2011 9:30 AM
Serious question for the local rhetoricians: Is the quoted comment reflective of a Safety Myth?
Why or why not?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 9:32 AM
Not quite correct. Child rape is a problem disproportionately within the Catholic clergy, not Catholicism as a whole. (Not that this is any vindication of Catholicism itself, which remains a superstitious and irrational set of beliefs)
Overall, very good post. I remain very glad I am no longer a member of the Catholic Church. The Church's actions -- and willingness to cover up same -- are a disgrace.
Former Roman Catholic, now agnostic atheist.
(And NO, I didn't leave the Church because I am "angry at God." I left the Church because there's no reason to believe there is a god and because the Church fails miserably at moral leadership.
Posted by: Bawdybill
|
March 20, 2011 9:49 AM
Since filing a complaint of child sex abuse by a priest with the church is going nowhere a wise parent would file a complaint with his local district attorney. CHILD ABUSE COMPLAINTS GENERALLY GO TO A GRAND JURY. While the merits of the case (evidence) may not get an indictment there is certainly a better chance of going to trial than messing around with the church system. A conviction would require the accused to register as a sex offender on a frequent basis. The notoriety resulting from the trial would probably cramp the defender quite a bit as well. Where I live there is no statute of limitations on child sex abuse so even if an indictment is not forthcoming at one grand jury hearing, it could get future review if the defendant is accused again or better evidence surfaces. So, lets quit dicking with the churchmen and go to our law enforcement officials where there's a shot at taking these creeps down.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 20, 2011 9:51 AM
In case anyone missed it. Here is black on white evidence that the Vatican demanded that the Irish Bishop cover up child rape and specifically cautioned the Bishops NOT to report allegations to the police.
Smoking Gun Proof
The Vatican runs an international paedophile ring.
Q.E.D
Posted by: JD
|
March 20, 2011 9:52 AM
"Shut up about other people's 'sins' until the Church is clean."
I'd say "shut the fuck up, period."
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
March 20, 2011 9:56 AM
Adrian,
Very well said. I want to email this to all of my Catholic family members-- especially the ones with children.
Posted by: humanapexx
|
March 20, 2011 10:03 AM
I suggest a 6th step:
The Catholic Church should admit Catholicism is 100% pure bullshit and they should just close the whole thing down. Sell the Vatican and return the proceeds to their previous customers who they've been ripping off for centuries.
http://darwinkilledgod.blogspot.com/
Posted by: humanapexx
|
March 20, 2011 10:06 AM
I once walked into the lobby of a Catholic church. I saw a $10 donation somebody left there. I took it and left. Was that wrong?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 10:12 AM
@39 humanapexx for the win!
Slight problem: The RCC doesn't have enough assets/funds to even minimally compensate all their former
customersvictims.Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
March 20, 2011 10:12 AM
@32
While I'm glad that some members of the Catholic clergy have taken steps to mitigate child abuse and rape, I have to say I'm quite surprised that the Vatican have not come down on these clergymen for violating canon law and not letting the Church (mis)handle the situation.
Posted by: blf
|
March 20, 2011 10:13 AM
In addition to that 1997 letter from the Vatican ordering the Irish not to report child raping priests to the police, the Vatican also refused to co-operate with the Irish commission investigating the pope-protected child rapists (according to one of the WikiLeaks USAlien Embassy cables):
Notice how the Vatican tried to claim the commission's investigation was interference in its internal affairs (“the Irish government had ‘failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations’…”). The so-called sovereignty of a large mansion in Rome is more important than investigating crimes that happened in Ireland. Obviously.
Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french
|
March 20, 2011 10:13 AM
#40
Well, on the one hand, it WAS theft.
On the other, there was a significant chance that what you stole would have been used to aid and abet a child rapist.
I'd call you Chaotic Good.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
March 20, 2011 10:15 AM
Trolling troll is awkward at trolling.
But yes, it was wrong, you idiot.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 10:16 AM
Things might yet change in England, since Hume has died and the his replacement seems more inclined to take the official Vatican line on such matters.
Hume was something of a maverick, for a Catholic cardinal anyway.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 20, 2011 10:16 AM
This When trying to understand the morally depraved, repugnant mind of the Vatican, never forget this.
The Vatican deeply believes that it is not subject to civil society, human beings and criminal laws. That these do not apply to it and its child raping minions.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
March 20, 2011 10:21 AM
I agree with this sentiment. Sadly, getting law enforcement involved is no guarantee that it will even get past the investigation stage before someone higher in the proverbial food-chain tries to put a stop to it.
IIRC, this is what happened in Belgium. Law enforcement had the sheer audacity to investigate the inviolable RCC, and government officials were tripping over themselves to apologize to the Church for the inconvenience and injustice that Church had suffered as a result. [/sarcasm]
(BTW, does anybody know the status of the investigation going on in Belgium? I haven't been keeping up with it as well as I should've.)
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 20, 2011 10:26 AM
rachel,wilmoth @48
I set up a google alert for press articles with key words Vatican, Catholic Church and paedophile.
I get 5 to 10 emails a day with multiple articles attached and just can't keep up. The scale of this child rape conspiracy is unfathomable.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
March 20, 2011 10:34 AM
That's just depressing beyond words.
Posted by: vanbeverningk
|
March 20, 2011 10:35 AM
I think the Archbishop misses the number one reason:
The Catholic Church sexually abuses children!
Posted by: spaninquis
|
March 20, 2011 10:58 AM
Having been raised in a Catholic family, and attended Parochial schools all the way from K through Law School, I just want to say how relieved I am that I didn't have a cute bum.
As an analogy, here in PA , like most states, we have a government organization called "Children and Youth Services", that is tasked with protecting the innocent and underage from harm, usually from their own parents, but more generally from anyone that would neglect or harm them. Like the Catholic Church, one would expect C&Y to be held to a higher standard of care when dealing with children.
Can you imagine the hue and cry that would be raised if it was discovered within the organization a systematic network of counselors and case workers engaged in, for instance, the trafficking of children into sexual slavery? Using our tax dollars no less. They would be shut down in about 30 seconds flat, with prosecutions and long jail terms handed out quickly and extensively.
In real life, did you see what happened to the Luzerne County (PA) judges who were caught sentencing juveniles to overly harsh sentences because they happened to have a hidden financial interest in the privately run juvenile facilities? They are going to jail.
But because the RCC is a religion, it's seems to be insulated from this. For now. That needs to change.
Posted by: mxh
|
March 20, 2011 10:59 AM
Great post. I totally agree, except that, rather than investigating their own priests, they should hand them over to the authorities. Terrible crimes have been committed and the church should not have authority over civil law. If they don't hand over everyone who they know have been committing crimes, then the governments should see the church as a criminal organization that is harboring child rapists and bring them down.
Posted by: chrstphrgthr
|
March 20, 2011 11:02 AM
I was kinda hoping the final suggestion, would be to kill themselves.
Not only would a mass (lol) suicide of Catholics result in no Catholics, but would temporarily ease over-population concerns world wide.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:05 AM
I notice that the author chose to reference the John Jay Report when it supported his argument, but chose to ignore the same study when it contradicted him.
Take a look at the Wikipedia entry on The John Jay Report:
"The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years."
Of course it doesn't follow that homosexuals are necessarily child abusers. But it does seem to indicate that, within the pool of clerical sexual abusers, a good number had a homosexual inclination.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
March 20, 2011 11:10 AM
I'm cautiously optimistic that it will change. There are promising signs--the Murphy Commission in Ireland and the Belgian law enforcement investigation* to name a few. I think that as cultural and societal attitudes about religion change and people become less religious, the RCC will lose much (hopefully all) of its political power and these widespread cases of abuse will disappear. The problem is, such change is slow and incremental, and until it finally comes to fruition, more children will be harmed at the hands of pedophile priests, and the Church will continue with its "Move along, folks. Nothing to see here." defense.
*I was thrilled that Belgian law enforcement basically said "Fuck you" to the RCC authorities and investigated them. However, I was angered by the Belgian government's response of "Were so sorry that these nasty investigators were so mean to you, your Popeness."
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 20, 2011 11:18 AM
mxh @ 53
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 11:20 AM
Actually the data you gave show nothing of the sort. You seem a bit confused and think that sexual attraction to a child of the same sex is the same as sexual attraction to an adult of the same sex. It is not. I am surprised you did not notice your mistake.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 11:23 AM
Here is a link to a good article on the difference between the abuse by an adult of a child of the same sex and homosexuality.
Posted by: eviltwit
|
March 20, 2011 11:31 AM
ugh, makes me nauseous. the PTB of the Catholic Church have repeatedly shown themselves to be despicable human beings. yet, people are still duped by them. grr.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 11:34 AM
Good post, Adrian. It would be so nice if pointing out the glaringly obvious would do some good when it comes to the Catholic church, but it seems that day will never arrive.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:37 AM
In response to #58:
No, I don't believe that sexual attraction to a child of the same sex is the same as sexual attraction to an adult of the same sex.
The term "pedophilia," is, in fact, not precise enough to describe the data in the John Jay Report.
A book has been written analyzing the John Jay Report entitled "After Asceticism: Sex, Prayer and Deviant Priests." The book explains in one passage:
"The term pederasty may be the best to describe the sex abuse of minors by clergy. The term pederasty describes a character trait of homosexual desire that targets younger males of any age (usually up to early adulthood) for frank sexual pleasures and unnatural affections. This description would also apply to seminary teachers who seduce seminarians, and bishops who seduce their male subordinates.
Pedophilia is used in diagnostic manuals to describe the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent children, either male or female.
Pederasty is a subset of homosexual behavior, and describes the sexual contact of adult males with pre-adolescent, adolescent or in some cases, young adult males."
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 11:40 AM
You previous comment suggests otherwise. Was it simply a mistake on your part ?
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:42 AM
Yes, it was. I wasn't precise enough in my language.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:44 AM
By way of counterpoint to the author's claims, here is a 2010 article from Psychology Today:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201003/six-important-points-you-dont-hear-about-regarding-clergy-sexual-abus
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 11:46 AM
@clayton.emmer. I have written extensively about homosexuality and paedophilia, eg: http://www.adrianliston.eu/blog/2010/9/18/a-true-apology-from-the-pope-would-acknowledge-that-catholic.html
Freund in 1963 did a study which found that while heterosexual men have an arousal response to naked prepubescent girls, homosexual men do not have an arousal response to naked prepubescent boys. The finding was later explained as thus:
"There were no peer-oriented homosexual males in our sample who regressed to children. Homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia are not synonymous. In fact, it may be that these two orientations are mutually exclusive, the reason being that the homosexual male is sexually attracted to masculine qualities whereas the heterosexual male is sexually attracted to feminine characteristics, and the sexually immature child's qualities are more feminine than masculine"
It is important to remember that paedophilia is not a sexual attraction to young versions of the sex, but rather a sexual attraction to the specifically asexual features of a prepubescent youth. Raping a 4 year old boy or girl is not homo- or hetero-sexual act, it is a paedophilic act.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
March 20, 2011 11:48 AM
@ blf #43
Yup. A present (aprox. 110 acres plus a "mansion"** in the countryside) from the uber-facist Mussolini to the pope and his hoodlums. (They had had a lovers' tiff over who got to bring up "their" Italian kiddies.) The pope likes to pretend it is a "sovereign" state so he can cadge free trips to the UK.
** The village of Castel Gandalfo
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 11:51 AM
clayton.emmer:
Then it's an inaccurate descriptor. There are descriptors in place for pedophiles who have specific age attractions, such as ephebophiles.
It's wrong on another level - there have been plenty of cases of priests raping/molesting/sexually abusing girls, you know. As the catholic church doesn't allow for women in the priesthood, that rather messes up your neat little definition.
You're still attempting to find a way to say "this is the fault of those icky queers!"
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
March 20, 2011 11:53 AM
Clayton Emmer,
The author of that Psychology Today rather misses the point.
Any organisation that works with children is going to have individual who abuse their position of trust, and molest children. The Catholic Church is going to be no different in that regard than any other organisation, despite it claiming moral authority. Where the Catholic Church has gone wrong, criminally so in some cases, is to cover up allegations of abuse, and to allow priests go on abusing rather than informing the civil authorities.
Why people are so angry with the Church is not that the abuse took place, but the response to it, or rather the lack of response. The Church clearly cared more about its image than it did about children in its care.
That is unforgivable, and the Church cannot even begin to repair the damage to its reputation until such time as it hands over all information it has on alleged cases of abuse to the appropriate authorities, co-operates fully in the investigation and prosecution of alleged crimes, and extradites priests who are currently hiding in the Vatican in an attempt to avoid prosecution.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:54 AM
In response to #66:
Are you acknowledging that clerical sexual abuse as documented by the John Jay Report is not all about pedophilia? More than 27% of the victims were post-pubescent.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 11:56 AM
@clayton.emmer. The article you cite has some excellent points, such as "No evidence exists that suggest that sexual orientation, in and of itself, makes someone at risk to commit sex crimes against children or others."
You are perhaps referring to their point #1, where they state that Catholic Priests are no more likely to be sexual abusers than the general public. I would make too points about their numbers:
1) Firstly, the 4% figure comes from analysing all Catholic clergy that entered the Church between 1970 and 2000, using complaints registered between 1970 and 2000. I do not like this comparison, as a Priest who entered in 1999 only has one year of their career being analysed. Instead I took only the cohort of Priests that entered in the 70s, as they have a 30 year career included within the study period. For this group, the figure is ~9%.
2) Their figure on the abuse rates within the general population is not, in fact, a measure of abuser rates within the general population, it is a measure of abuse rates. In other words, they are assuming that because 12% of boys are abused, than 12% of people abuse boys. Unless you assume that each child abuser only abuses one child per lifetime, this is patently false.
Posted by: CCLCarm
|
March 20, 2011 12:00 PM
They certainly DO NOT get it. I feel the same way as the man who sees evil in the clerical garb. I was 10 when a Roman Catholic Priest got extremely inappropriate with me in a confessional. He asked me personal questions about touching myself while I'm pretty sure he was touching himself. 9% is surprisingly low for pedophile priests. Let's also factor in priests who use their power go after adults. My cousin's brother-in-law the priest impregnated a nun. It's a broken system which does not take into account- the humanity of these men. Nor does it try to understand the kind of person who would give up normal needs for love and intimacy to serve gods.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 12:03 PM
@clayton.emmer. So you are saying that 63% of cases were pedophilia, while the other 27% were youth attraction. That sounds about right. Did you read the references I listed about interviews with sex offenders and their psychology and sexual identification?
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 12:04 PM
In response to #68:
Yes, I am aware of those other descriptors, and my source does describe them. I simply wasn't going to type up whole pages from the book. It's available for anyone interested in honestly examining a contrary viewpoint.
http://www.amazon.com/After-Asceticism-Prayer-Deviant-Priests/dp/142590923X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300636669&sr=8-1
The John Jay Report found that around 80% of the victims were male. The study was limited to examining the behavior of priest; true enough. No similar study has been conducted on women religious, it's true. Perhaps that will be forthcoming; I don't know. But not sure how that is really germane to the discussion at hand. I will only comment on available data. That would seem to be what a scientific approach to this subject requires.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
March 20, 2011 12:06 PM
Related to this: Bill Donohue is angry that someone has the audacity to be angry about the child rape being covered up by the RCC hierarchy. Naturally, he goes with the "Child rape happens elsewhere, too, you know" argument (Yes, we know. But there's generally not an institutionalized cover-up put in place.) and "The liberal sexual agenda (read: teh gheys) made us do it."
http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2106
(via Ed Brayton)
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 12:07 PM
CCLCarm:
Indeed. The whole celibacy business certainly doesn't help, but it isn't the whole problem by a long shot, either.
Centuries back, celibacy wasn't a requirement, and men high up in the church often had quite debauched tastes when it came to their private life.
One thing that has done a great deal of harm, especially in later years, when celibacy was instituted, was the insistence on teaching (and driving home) the great evil of women.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 12:08 PM
Clayton, I'll assume you are a heterosexual male. Do you get sexually aroused by naked three year old girls? Would you describe a man being aroused by a naked three year old girl as experiencing normal heterosexual desires? No? Then don't make the reciprocal assumption about homosexuality.
Posted by: raven
|
March 20, 2011 12:09 PM
That seems to be what others including the FBI found. One FBI report stated that the second highest correlation with child abuse was being in a conservative xian home. The first IIRC, were parents with drug and alcohol problems.
This source below, a fundie xian source, claims the same thing.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 12:12 PM
Raven:
Interesting. The family member who started raping me when I was three was a conservative xian. Catholic, specifically.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 20, 2011 12:19 PM
Or it could mean that the availability of boys to a pedophile who's a Catholic clergyman is higher. I'm not an expert on Catholicism, but I understand that there's no such thing as altar girls, for example. If that's the case, we would expect the victims to be predominantly boys even in a case in which pedophiles have no preference whatsoever regarding their victims' sex.Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 12:20 PM
@adrian (#71):
"I took only the cohort of Priests that entered in the 70s, as they have a 30 year career included within the study period. For this group, the figure is ~9%."
OK, that explains the discrepancy in numbers. I really encourage you to read the book from the Linacre Institute, if you haven't already, because it goes through detailed analysis of the abuse by decade of ordination, etc. At the time of publication (2006), the trends showed a growing number of abusive priests in each decade of ordination from 1925 to 1965 (peaking at around 1,000 in 1965), and a steady, rather dramatic decline since that time. It will be interesting to see what the data looks like in 20-30 years.
I was a seminarian for 2 1/2 years (1994-1997), and my impression, based on conversations, etc., was that the formation for celibate life was very poor in the 1960s and 1970s. The whole area of ascetical living / self-discipline was not very thoroughly encouraged or exemplified in seminary life. It was still not terribly good in the 1990s when I was in seminary (St. Paul, MN), but I believe it has improved significantly since then.
Regarding your second point about abuser vs. abuse rates, your point is well-taken. The Linacre Institute notes a similar thing, and regrets that The John Jay Report's data was not more wide-reaching. The first chapter talks extensively about the limits of what we can determine from the John Jay Report. The data there is good, but insufficient.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 12:24 PM
Re #78 and 79: here's the citation I have saved.
References:
Brown, J.C and C.R. Bohn (eds) 1989 "Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse" New York, Pilgrim Press.
Finkelhor, D. 1986. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fortune, M.M. 1983. Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin. New York, Pilgrim Press.
Goldstein, M.J, et al 1973. Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Van Leeuwen, M.S. 1990. Gender and Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World. Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 12:24 PM
@Matt Penfold in comment #69:
"Why people are so angry with the Church is not that the abuse took place, but the response to it, or rather the lack of response. The Church clearly cared more about its image than it did about children in its care."
Totally agree. I am hopeful that the Church can correct course on this. The change only comes about by way of admitting fully the failures. I think that is beginning to happen. What is going on in Philadelphia right now should underscore the need to do so.
A good resource on this issue of concern for Church image is Phil Lawler's book "The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture."
http://www.amazon.com/Faithful-Departed-Collapse-Bostons-Catholic/dp/1594033749/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300638232&sr=1-1
Posted by: fundip
|
March 20, 2011 12:31 PM
thats the typical catholic repsonse to everything.
"suffering makes you a martyr, i'm a good person, cant you see that i am suffering?"
when it comes to child molesting there are basically 2 kinds of people: the ones who molest, and the ones who are deeply disgusted by the molesting. there is no middle ground. nobody ever says, "child molesting isnt for me, but i can understand how some might be into it." the man that defends child rape has most certainly commited it himself.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 12:38 PM
@clayton.emmer.
Yes, I agree it is likely that the rate of child abuse will be falling in Priests who entered the church in more recent decades. Among other factors, the demographic entering the Church has changed radically, the government's attitude towards regulation (especially of schools) has improved massively, society's willingness to discuss sexual abuse has increased, etc etc.
Of course, that is not an excuse for inaction within the Catholic church, but you would have to think that at some point the number of new revelations would have to start declining.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 12:39 PM
re my own comment #82: submitted after previewing, but before adding my own comments.
That's why I'm inclined to agree with the guest author Liston's comment that the problem is "within Catholicism" and not amend it to "within the Catholic clergy". Fundamentalist religions in general seem to include by definition hypocrisy, denial, and unquestioning submission to (masculine) authority; all of which contribute to ongoing abuse. The clergy just has even more contributing factors: all of the above, plus guaranteed trust, access to a victim pool, and institutionalized protection. I'm not at all surprised by that 10% figure.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
March 20, 2011 12:41 PM
Oh! I guess that makes it all right then.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 12:43 PM
pteryxx:
In a nutshell. One of the happiest times in my life was graduating 8th grade and being able to walk away from catholic school, catholic church and all other things catholic. It's a thoroughly nasty institution through and through. They do a great deal of harm, always have done.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 12:45 PM
@pteryxx.
The idea that everyone is a sinner and that all sins will be forgiven if forgiveness is asked could be particularly damaging. For anyone feeling criminal urges, this could be a doctrine that encourages the person to think of their urge as part of the natural sinful nature of people, and the practice of repentance hardly discourages "sinning".
That said, I don't know of any data that has looked at sexual abuse rates by religion.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 12:46 PM
@PZ Myers (#87):
No, that does not make it all right. At all.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 12:49 PM
Stepping away from the web to go to Mass, but I simply want to thank Adrian for keeping the dialogue civil and on subject. I appreciate that very much and respect him for it. I learned a few things along the way.
Posted by: raven
|
March 20, 2011 12:51 PM
True. The Jehovah's Witlessness's have a child sex abuse problem. So do the Mormons and fundies.
It has a lot to do with authoritarian, male dominated churches.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 12:54 PM
Adrian @89:
That reminds me of a comment by lofgren I saw over on Culture Wars recently:
link
I'm still trying to comprehend the concept... but it sounds more and more accurate, and frightening.
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
March 20, 2011 12:55 PM
I can speak only for myself, but I will say this much: count me among the enemies of the Catholic Church. I stand opposed, proudly, to any organization whose existence appears in the light of all evidence to be focused on raping children and fleecing the vulnerable.
Though I hardly need to do anything to "ruin" them. They're doing a fine job all by themselves. I'll just applaud every instance of justice coming to their gilded doors, and I fully support the efforts of their victims to exact retribution.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 12:57 PM
@clayton.emmer
I enjoyed our disagreement and appreciated that you responded to references with references and numbers with numbers. An evidence-based approach at least has us both coming to the table with the same basic references for discussion.
Posted by: raven
|
March 20, 2011 1:04 PM
Common fundie xian bumper sticker.
Xians aren't better....just saved.
So join our church and get a free, Get Out of Hell Forever card.
The first part of the slogan is correct, at least.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 1:08 PM
heck, the "sinning is natural" concept even reminds me of the discussion around PAX and laughing at rape jokes:
link to quoted comment
Maybe validation of abuse is as much of a threat as denial of it.
Posted by: madeleine
|
March 20, 2011 1:19 PM
To those who wish to see articles regarding clergy abuse around the world, compiled daily, go to www.BishopAccountability.org. Click on "Abuse Tracker" in top, left corner.
Posted by: Chaos Cryptic
|
March 20, 2011 1:43 PM
Ugh. Pederasty is an outdated and misleading term used to impose the no-longer-salient distinctions of a distant time on people living in a completely different cultural system and deny the distinctions that exist now. Its only appropriate use is in the study of ancient cultures. [/curmudgeonly classicist]
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
March 20, 2011 1:52 PM
"Pederasty" is outdated and misleading.
Not unlike the Roman Catholic Church.
Posted by: spaninquis
|
March 20, 2011 1:56 PM
Nice article on the front page of our local paper today about our local Bishop's "lack of knowledge" of the scandal rocking the Philadelphia Arch-Diocese, when he was the assistant to the Arch-bishop accused of protecting the molesters.
http://tinyurl.com/4rkl6eg
uh-huh.
"I haf no knowledge of vat they were doing. I vas just following orders."
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 2:03 PM
Uh huh. Interesting that all the covering up has generated loads of paperwork and other administrative type work. I'm just sure he never saw a thing. :eyeroll:
Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes
|
March 20, 2011 2:21 PM
Well, in Germany they're offering the victims 5000€ each. They're clearly in it for the money...
Posted by: jan
|
March 20, 2011 2:21 PM
Re "sell a few art works and compensate the victims". I say it is about time to start seriously analysing whether the current Catholic hierarchy is actually entitled to property rights to those art works, cathedrals, mansions. They were built by our ancestors (yes, the European painters and bricklayers and whatnot, later: the American colonies providing the gold and silver, the African slaves indirectly producing the necessary capital).
When the Protestant areas in the north of Europe seceded, they kept whatever churches, artwork etc. were still in the area (when they didn´t go berserk and smash stuff.
It makes me wonder: take for example a parish with dwindling membership, are the last ones left the "owners" of priceless tryptichs, chalices, etc? Or do those things belong to all of us?
SO: Should the childraping priests be allowed to pay for their guilt by selling those items to private buyers? Isn´t that...
(I´m submitting now, gotta go, can we think this one out together?) See you later...
Posted by: pittige
|
March 20, 2011 2:25 PM
follow the site of Patrick J. Wall here : http://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/ you shall read that these cases goes back to very early centuries of catholicism and it is the highest rate for any organisation. The rate for immaturity of there so adored clergy caste is even higher.
Posted by: Michael
|
March 20, 2011 2:26 PM
I do not want to minimize the issue of child sex abuse by Catholic priests. Any case is one too many, and all such cases are horrific. But it is good to be accurate in reporting, nonetheless. (Full disclosure: I am a Catholic. However, the evidence-based community should be willing to consider the following points.)
There is a problem with the 100-fold statistic cited in this post. The article linked to starts from the number of *registered sex offenders* in the US and then compares this figure to the number of *complaints of sexual abuse against Catholic priests*.
The article then concludes that by "crunching the numbers" we can infer that .08% of the US population consists of sex offenders against children.
One problem with this has already been pointed out above (at #14). But the much bigger problem is the following:
The argument assumes that every paedophilic sex offender in the US is a *registered* sex offender -- that is someone convicted of a crime.
This is, of course, just plain silly. Also it is very hard to reconcile with reports of rates of abuse such as this: "A literature review of 23 studies found rates of 3% to 37% for males and 8% to 71% for females, which produced an average of 17% for boys and 28% for girls, while a statistical analysis based on 16 cross-sectional studies estimated the rate to be 7.2% for males and 14.5% for females." (Wikipedia, "Child Sexual Abuse," with plenty of references.)
While again I do not want to minimize child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, in fact exaggerated claims like those made in this post actually serve to downplay and misrepresent the extent of the child sexual abuse problem in society at large, which is surely also a legitimate concern.
Posted by: Ed Milnisov
|
March 20, 2011 2:30 PM
Wilson and Shea had a RC priest character named Padre Pederastia in their 1975 novel trilogy Illuminatus!...even then an exploitable meme. Interesting and gratifying to watch the outrage finally growing to potentially effective pitch.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 2:44 PM
@Michael.
Indeed, the level of sex offenders in the general public is almost certainly greater than the number of convictions. But equally, the level of sex offenders in the Catholic Church is almost certainly greater than the number of cases that the Church has acknowledged as being substantiated. In both cases there is a serious under-reporting bias. Could this bias be skewing the statistics? Certainly. Is this bias skewing the statistics? We don't know.
As for your rates of abuse figure for the general public, this is not the same as the rate of abusers in the general public. Afterall, 1% abuser rate can result in a 10% abused rate, if each abuser abuses 10 children in their lifetime. What is the multiplication factor in abuser:abused relations? We don't know.
Posted by: cag
|
March 20, 2011 2:55 PM
Adrian, do you have any estimates of the number of priestly abuses versus the numbers of abuses reported? Is one sex more likely than the other to report abuse?
My WAG is that there are many more abuses than reports, given that some abusers have hundreds of victims who did not report the abuse. Some of the abused did not report anything until one of them spoke up.
The RC priests are experts at making the victims feel guilt. I feel that the number of unidentified abusers will add to the horror.
Having submit problems. Apologies if this shows up twice.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
March 20, 2011 2:56 PM
Maybe worth pointing out that the screed penned by the 'Linacre Institute' which was quoted @ 62
Is a subset of Catholic behavior...
So where the sociological based study actually becomes their remit is a little less clear.
The blurb on the 'Linacre Institute' actually sounds a little more fundamentalist then is healthy..
That is not to say their conclusions from their book are valid or no.
But given the tragic history of this vile practice in the Catholic closet and the way the church hierarchy has attempted to aid and abet the crime by covering it up and moving the guilty perverts on it seems rather careless that anyone would allow and then believe the fox when it dictates how the chickens had an accident!
Can you really trust a affiliated appendage of an institution that lies at every possible opportunity, then blames the victims or the environment, the times , teh gheys, atheists, anything and or anybody that they can think of,except the perverted priests in their employ.
And they remain in deep denial, right up to and including Benny de German, who actually knows a damn sight more then admitted to!
And he has known it for some time.
Posted by: joed
|
March 20, 2011 3:04 PM
#40 I once walked into the lobby of a Catholic church. I saw a $10 donation somebody left there. I took it and left. Was that wrong?
If you knew for certain the money would be used to further sexual abuse and so you took the money and donated it to sex abuse prevention--that may be considered morally good--maybe. But if you took it and got a bigmac then that was morally evil unless you were truly starving. So, don't be a dick about it--take 10 bucks out of your piggy-bank and donate to a worthy cause.
And I hope you are not joking about taking the money.
Posted by: crowepps
|
March 20, 2011 4:07 PM
Even in the rare cases where the offense was so horrible that the Church defrocked and expelled the offender at once, the focus on protecting the reputation of the Church by hushing things up and avoiding civil law enforcement left the offender loose, unsupervised, and continuing to harm children OUTSIDE the Church.
Have to say, this purported interaction reads entirely like fiction to me, one of those fantasy conversations people construct where they always say the right thing and everyone recognizes their brilliance. Actually, a great deal like the similar pieces posted by Priests for Life about how their "sidewalk counseling" saves hundreds of babies -- "send money".
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 4:16 PM
Letter released this weekend by the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference:
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2011/03/19/healing-renewal-2/
It opens as follows:
"The abuse of children by some priests and religious was an appalling wrong. The inadequate response by some Church leaders has left a deep wound that may never be fully healed.
No apology, no gesture of repentance or sorrow can ever make up for the hurt that has been caused to those abused and to their families: they have been grievously harmed and let down by people who professed the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are deeply ashamed of this and we are profoundly sorry for any failures on our part.
Today we wish to give expression to that sorrow by expressing our commitment to existing initiatives as well as to a number of new initiatives. Our hope is that these initiatives will enhance the personal, pastoral, spiritual and practical support available to survivors of child physical and sexual abuse by some priests and religious in the Catholic Church in Ireland...."
Posted by: cag
|
March 20, 2011 4:28 PM
clayton.emmer #113
Translation - we (RCC) have been found out, how do we spin this to our advantage? By the way, we need money!
Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes
|
March 20, 2011 4:39 PM
So we won't even botherPosted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/6v0eSH8SpezhFlM5RQC5OWXzVCPslKE-#56026
|
March 20, 2011 4:40 PM
Way to go Catholic Church. You are about to prove evolution by human selection.
The more your priest rape children and the more the hierarchy covers it up, the more practitioners you will lose and the sooner you will become seen as the worthless organization you are and ripe for being consigned to the dustbin of history. It can't come soon enough.
I can also hope that the momentum of one religion's demise will also consign all the other world religions into the same dustbin with you.
Posted by: magster2
|
March 20, 2011 4:41 PM
Folks, I'm afraid there still is a problem with Adrian's analysis. I just posted the following to his site. I should add, though, that try as I might to crunch the numbers with reasonable assumptions, I still come up with a much higher percentage of abusers among Catholic priests than the general population. I just don't think that wildly exaggerated percentages are going to help the cause.
======================================
I have no love for the Catholic church. But there there is a very serious flaw at the end of your analysis which renders your conclusion that 8.2 to 9.9% of Catholic priests were child sex offenders invalid.
You are confusing the percentage of CASES of actual abuse with the percentage of PRIESTS that are abusers. The inexcusable heartache to the victims is the same, but the numbers are not. After all, the most infamous cases are of priests that abuse again and again, and these are probably the most credible cases. It could very well be that an occupational hazard of a non-abusing priest is a 5% chance of being accused of child abuse at least once in their careers. So let us say that 5% of blameless priests are accused once and 1% of all priests are abusers that are accused on average ten times each, and (to keep it simple) that all of the blameless priests are exonerated and all of the actual cases are substantiated. Then out of 10000 priests, there are 495 blameless ones that are accused once and 100 that are actual abusers. This produces 1495 total cases, two thirds of which are produced by only just over one sixth of the accused. You can't take two thirds of the almost 6% that are accused and say that 4% of the priests are abusers.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
March 20, 2011 4:41 PM
clayton.emmer, is one of the things you learned to stop blaming gay people?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 20, 2011 4:45 PM
magster2, why should we take your analysis for anything other than apologetics/disinformation for the pedophiles? Citations to the academic literature please, so it can be properly sorted out...
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 4:47 PM
magster...
Adrian's numbers come from the church's own reports of credible cases. Why ... no, why *in the hell* do you choose to invent a number of false accusations out of thin air, while complaining that Adrian's stats aren't rigorous enough?
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 20, 2011 4:49 PM
Even if the number of abusive priests was only 1% or less, what does the fact that the other 99% are required by Canon Law to protect them say about the Catholic Church?
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 4:53 PM
From http://jebrown.us/Relationshop/Definitions/apology.html
And so on.
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
March 20, 2011 5:03 PM
It's pretty simple: the Catholic Church doesn't "get it" because it is still stuck on its divine right to decide what "it" is.
Arguing over relative numbers of abusers is to get sidetracked from the central issue: the insistence of the church that its own authority should override secular law. It's part of the doctrine, and it pops up repeatedly in official statements.
The problem isn't whether priests are more or less likely to molest than the general population, its the long-time church policy of "dealing with it internally" by hiding the abusers. And behind that is the mindset that an institution can claim moral authority granted directly by god and excuse itself for covering up crimes.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 5:14 PM
@Magster2. Okay, I have crunched the numbers now, using the breakdown into number of complaints made against each Priest. If we assume that 100% of unsubstantiated claims were made against Priests who only got a single allegation (and this is an unrealistic model), the numbers change slightly. Using the 1.5% "false" rate, the number drops from 9.9% of Priests to 9.6% of Priests. Using the 80% "substantiated" rate, the number drops from 8.2% to 4.9%. Take the middle-range of each estimate and you drop from 9% to 7%.
In other words, even if you accept that the Church reported all cases of abuse and never inaccurately excused a Priest and that all the false accusations occurred in the single allegation case, you only drop down to a figure of 7%.
Posted by: Adrian
|
March 20, 2011 5:17 PM
Also, I wouldn't say that moving from the 7% "best case scenario" to the 9% "random distribution of errors" is "wild exaggeration".
Posted by: elronxenu
|
March 20, 2011 5:32 PM
#112 crowepps,
I agree. The story is a Chick tract excuse for abuse.
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
March 20, 2011 6:06 PM
Focusing on the statistics seems to make any discussion of the child sex abuse scandal too clinical for my tastes.
I am outraged! Many children were abused over many years. And the Catholic Church knew about the abuse and protected the abusers. But even if only one child had been abused by a priest, that would be too many.
This is the institution that purports to speak in God's name as it tells the rest of humanity what consenting adults, even married consenting adults, morally can do with their own bodies, who they can have sex with, which body parts can go where.
The church by its own actions has shown that it has no moral authority to tell the rest of us how to live our lives. The church is led by ordinary and often immoral men who simply make things up as they go along to suit themselves.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
March 20, 2011 6:07 PM
While the discussion of the numbers of child-raping clergy is interesting and the sources appear contradictory, the fact remains that the numbers are not the major point. The Catholic Church's hierarchy, as a matter of official policy, protected and supported child rapists. The hierarchy decided the prestige and dignity of the Church were more important than the welfare of children.
The present pope, when he was
Head of the InquisitionPrefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a letter to all bishops telling them not to turn over clerical child rapists to civil authorities under pain of excommunication. This is the same pope who whines about secularism and how the Church is losing political power in places like Ireland. He's supposed to be an intelligent person. One would think he'd realize that covering up sexual abuse would not play well among the laity. Sure, he talks about "forgiveness" and "we are all sinners" but he appears to be all talk and no action. Bernard Cardinal Law, Archbishop Emeritus of Boston, is still cowering in the Vatican, unwilling to respond to a grand jury subpoena about covering up sexual crimes. Law remains in the Vatican with the Pope's blessing.Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 20, 2011 6:14 PM
I am sorry, clayton.emmer, but that apology does not mean much. The RCC spent decades hiding the crimes and moving many priests into poor areas where the victims had almost no where to be protected. This apology only came after years of pressure by the victims and their advocates.
Instead of an apology, have the RCC turn over their papers and, oh, send Cardinal Law back to Boston. It would also help if the current Pope would step down for his part in the criminal cover up.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 6:15 PM
Reading the comments above and considering the data re fundamentalism as a risk factor for child abuse, I can appreciate where you are coming from with this sentiment.
However, you seem to be equating Catholicism with fundamentalism. To what degree do you believe the two are directly equivalent? What percentage of Catholics can accurately be called fundamentalists and therefore might represent a pool of people with an increased risk of committing child rape when compared to the population at large? Are there more fundamentalists within Catholicism than within the population as a whole -- a population that certainly includes numerous non-Catholic fundamentalist sects?
If what you mean is that child rape is a problem within fundamentalist sects, then I'd absolutely agree with you. However, if your argument is that Catholicism = fundamentalism, then you need to provide some data that Catholics outside the clergy are more likely than the general population to commit child rape. Otherwise, you have failed to support your contention that child rape is any more a problem within Catholicism than within the general population.
Mike
Posted by: raven
|
March 20, 2011 6:24 PM
There are fundamentalist Catholics. Not all Catholics are fundie Catholics.
Fundie Catholics hate fundie Protestants. Fundie Protestants hate them back.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
March 20, 2011 6:28 PM
You didn't read too well, Mike. It has to do with conservative christian households, including fundamentalists. I grew up catholic. They are the definition of conservative christians.
Don't make the mistake of thinking of fundamentalists as some sort of cartoon characters, hanging out with a crazed look in their eyes, and a roomful of bibles and signs.
A majority of catholics are fundamentalists when it comes to the basics of their beliefs (which are whacked enough as it is) and they do follow the patriarchal, submissive women/children model. Catholicism is based on that model.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 20, 2011 6:35 PM
There are two major points the apologists can't wave away. 1) A large number of priests have raped a larger number of children. 2) Evidence for these rapes has been systematically hidden by the RCC hierarchy, upon order of the present POOP in his previous job. These facts aren't for discussion, unless you have "smoking gun" evidence otherwise. All else is bullshit, and the exact number of raping priests is irrelevant, as long as the confirmed number is greater than 1. Given criminal convictions of statutory rape, that is a fact too. An allegedly moral group who hides criminal behavior??? Hypocrite be thy name, and the taint of hypocrisy falls upon all apologists...
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 6:46 PM
Caine --
Actually, I read quite well, thank you! I know what the research is discussing. However, it isn't a given that Catholic household = conservative Christian household. You and pteryxx seem to be saying the two terms are interchangeable without producing any evidence that's the case. Therefore the comment re false equivalence.
Like you, I grew up Catholic. All my relatives are Catholic. SOME of them are/were fundamentalists. SOME of them would be considered conservative Christians. While there is some significant overlap in the categories, they are not the same. Wouldn't you agree?
Don't make the mistake of conflating Catholicism with conservative Christianity or with fundamentalism. Let's at least try to be precise in targeting which groups are at issue.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 6:59 PM
I'd be willing to believe you if you'd be willing to produce some evidence to this effect. You've posted a naked assertion. Agreed but a red herring when it comes to establishing whether Catholicism itself is a risk factor for child rape, as opposed to a fundamentalistic or conservative religious orientation, which not all (or perhaps even most) Catholics fit. Some do. Some don't.Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 7:31 PM
I dare say, since Catholics are a version of Christians, and conservative Christianity is a significant risk factor for child abuse as stated above, that Catholics (like other patriarchal religions) have an increased risk of committing child rape compared to the overall population. Since said overall population includes people who don't identify as Christian at all, a designation that conservative Christians are unlikely to hold.
with all due respect, whoop de frickin' do. The term is "increased risk" not "absolute certainty" but that hardly matters in this case, does it? Like the saying goes, if "only" 5% of McDonald's employees are spitting in your food, you ain't going to McDonald's.
Are you planning to argue that Catholicism somehow segregates all its child molesters into the priesthood, thus leaving the general Catholic population more blameless than the rank-and-file of other versions of conservative Christianity? Or do you wish to claim that Catholics are less likely than other Christians to trend fundamentalist? Personally I could not care less which particular religion a molester calls upon to justify or conceal abuse of children.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 20, 2011 7:52 PM
Nice try at reductio ad absurdum. No. Why would you think I was going to argue such a point? The general population of Catholics, I believe, is no more likely to commit child rape than the general population at large, since both Catholicism and the population at large holds groups with conservative, fundamentalistic religious outlooks as well as non-conservative religious views. There is a range within both. To the degree that Catholicism is more conservative and fundamentalistic than the general population is yet to be established, and it is to that degree that one might be justified in attributing relative risk. It is you who've repeatedly made the naked assertion that Catholics as a group, excluding the clergy, are more likely to commit child rape and are more conservative than the general population. You've yet to produce any support for these assertions. I note the shift of goal posts here. We were comparing Catholics to the general population, not to other Christians within that population. Are YOU claiming that there are more conservatives within Catholicism than within the general population, a population that contains numerous non-Catholic conservative groups? If so, on what basis? You seem to attribute a large relative risk associated with Catholicism. I'd like to know on what data you base this. Agreed 100%. All support or succor of child abuse is itself a crime in my book, no matter where it comes from.Posted by: DLC
|
March 20, 2011 8:21 PM
The point being, the RCC could have reported these clergy to the police, and legally were obligated to do so. These were not incidents of homosexuality, nor does pedophilia bear any moral resemblance to homosexuality. The church should have reported these incidents to the authorities, and should have let the perpetrators pay the price for what they did. Instead, they allowed this to go on, they facilitated the evasion of the criminal justice system by covering up and transferring pedophiles instead of having them arrested and they further acted to silence reports to police by threatening to excommunicate any who spoke out. They (Cardinal Law, at least) even used the influence of the church to cover up these incidents. I apologize if I'm hitting points others have already hit, but it bears re-stating.
Posted by: ChrisV
|
March 20, 2011 8:48 PM
Although it is true that it is a relatively small percentage of priests who are offenders - IT IS A VERY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF ADMINISTRATORS WHO PROVIDED COVERUP! That it the issue!
Posted by: Robbie
|
March 20, 2011 9:26 PM
Should we be surprised that an organisation based on a litany of lies, fabrications, fraudulent carry on and one that completely 'cons' it's followers with BS can be trusted with the kiddies? No. We shouln't be surprised. I'd be pretty sure that it's not only catholic priests that rape the boys and girls. The other flavours are just as revolting. Recently there's been press on Muzzies and jewish clerics playing with the kiddies too. The really positive thing about this: Most clerics are now assumed to be child rapists purely because of their vocation. This reduces these persons claims of moral superiority, and those of the firm they represent. These people lie for a living, one more fib about the boys and girlies "can't do any damage".
Posted by: crowepps
|
March 20, 2011 9:28 PM
I agree -- at least half of supposed Catholics pretty much ignore the moral rules promulgated by the Church, use birth control and get divorces and act like everyone else, rarely set foot in the place, don't donate money, and don't take any of it particularly seriously. Those people can't be called fundamentalists, but it's kind of hard to see on what basis they should be called Catholics. To be precise, I'd say the problematic group is those Catholics who revere the Pope as God's earthly representative, who believe everyone including non-Catholics should take his every murmur extremely seriously, who join Opus Dei, who want to return to the Latin Mass and Gregorian Chant, who insist the rigid, misogynistic, anti-sex, anti-gay, moral rules of the church are perfectly reasonable and should be enshrined in civil law world wide. Likely they run their own families on the authoritarian, patriarchal lines they hunger to have their Holy Father impose on them.The STRUCTURE of the Church is authoritarian and fundamentalist. The THEOLOGY of the Church is authoritarian and fundamentalist.
Posted by: pokip
|
March 20, 2011 9:37 PM
Twice I have chanced upon a radio program discussing this issue with the opportunity for people to phone in with their stories. This is on a Australian government radio station so as fair as is reasonable with no shock jock trawling. Both times the switchboard has been inundated, the people that do talk are mostly adult and still completely destroyed by the actions of priests in the past.
One man told a story of him pursuing action where a woman turned up at his house with the pretense of independent information gathering, he had doubts about her position and eventually found out during the interview that she belonged to the church involved and went in covertly to get details of his case.
This isn't about seeking out deep pockets, this is about the true victims being the raped, serious damage inflicted on an obviously large community and a continuing underhanded cover up of the churches actions and responsibility.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 20, 2011 9:58 PM
No, WE were not. YOU are considering Catholics separately. The quote I cited (#82 above):
the second best predictor (of abuse) is conservative religiosity
And I said, based on that citation, that Catholics probably have an increased risk of child sexual abuse. Just like the other Christians included in that statistic.
I don't see why you keep insisting that Catholics be considered separately while "other Christians" get subsumed into the "general population" as your quote above attests. That's not the division made in the cited work, as far as I know. Either admit that you're blaming those other religions for the observed increase in child abuse, or stop trying to distance a particular brand of Christianity from the evidence.
Entire citation:
Posted by: Ms. Daisy Cutter, Vile Creature Powered Entirely By Bitter
|
March 20, 2011 10:12 PM
Regarding #55, if you google "Clayton Emmer," you learn that he is buddies with noted Catho-fundie whackjob blogger Dawn Eden and has co-authored a book with her. He is equating pedophilia with homosexuality because (1) he is making a literal apologia for the church, and (2) he's a homophobic asshole.
I wasn't going to go to the Linacre Institute's website, figuring that it was about as accurate as FreeRepublic, if more "civil" about it. Anubis, #110, thanks for validating my hunch.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 20, 2011 10:25 PM
Between 7-10% is not a small percentage in this context...
You know what's very uncivil? Fucking children.
Take your civility and shove it up your rectory
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 20, 2011 10:31 PM
And of course this homophobic asshole is doing just a huge exercise in distraction as he doesn't contest that the number of "homosexual" and "pedophile" offenders in the church still add up into "RAPISTS THE CHURCH DEFENDS"
I don't care if 3% of them raped Porky Pig they are still asshole evil predatory corrupt figures that the Church defended.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 20, 2011 11:38 PM
Ms. Daisy Cutter (#144):
You wrote, "Regarding #55, if you google "Clayton Emmer," you learn that he is buddies with noted Catho-fundie whackjob blogger Dawn Eden and has co-authored a book with her. He is equating pedophilia with homosexuality because (1) he is making a literal apologia for the church, and (2) he's a homophobic asshole."
Just for the record: I've never met Dawn Eden in person; we simply commented on the same event (one at which she was present and which I viewed online in its recorded form). I've never authored a published book.
I did NOT equate pedophilia with homosexuality. The author of the original article provided five suggested action items for the Church. I was responding to the author's claim in #2... "nothing to do with homosexuality" is pretty strong language.
As for the claim about me being a homophobic asshole, I don't know what to say, other than it strikes me as rather unscientific.
Posted by: Koshka
|
March 20, 2011 11:42 PM
So when confronted by someone associating catholic priests with child abusers this priests considers physical violence as an option? To be fair he did not go there but he also considered expressing understanding and did not bother with this either.
This man is a simple coward.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 20, 2011 11:43 PM
So's your promiscuous mother
Posted by: Koshka
|
March 20, 2011 11:52 PM
clayton.emmer #147
Are you saying you are not a homophobic asshole? Or just there is no evidence you are a homophobic asshole?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 12:02 AM
Nice use of Scientism there.
Posted by: consciousness razor
|
March 21, 2011 12:09 AM
clayton.emmer:
It's got nothing to do with homosexuality in the same way it's got nothing to do with bisexuality or heterosexuality.
Strong language: Do you understand how fucking bigoted and/or stupid you'd have to be not to recognize that?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/ZqmYcEYku91MDeo391LaAZKDGD4-#cd883
|
March 21, 2011 12:18 AM
This reminds me of another story
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/242/enemy-camp
Posted by: hotshoe
|
March 21, 2011 12:19 AM
He can't pretend there is no evidence that he's a homophobe - his posting history here provides the evidence:
"Of course it doesn't follow that homosexuals are necessarily child abusers. But it does seem to indicate that, within the pool of clerical sexual abusers, a good number had a homosexual inclination."
"The term pederasty describes a character trait of homosexual desire that targets younger males of any age (usually up to early adulthood) for frank sexual pleasures and unnatural affections. "
Sure, Clayton, Catholic child sex abuse is all about the evil gays !
If it weren't for the gays (oh, and the immoral secularism which influenced the holy church in the 1970s) then there never would have been a Catholic child rape problem. Just keep telling yourself that, Clayton, and keep telling yourself that the reason you choose to believe it has nothing to do with your own homophobia.
Posted by: Chaos Cryptic
|
March 21, 2011 12:20 AM
For someone who backpedaled quickly into claims that of course you know that attraction to a same-sex child and attraction to a same-sex adult are not equivalent, you seem to be pretty intent that everybody else should ignore the distinction. I wonder why that is. Maybe because you're a homophobic asshole!Posted by: Koshka
|
March 21, 2011 12:43 AM
hotshoe,
clayton.emmer can pretend there is no evidence of his homophobia and most probably will unless he has already run away.
Posted by: hotshoe
|
March 21, 2011 1:03 AM
Thanks for suggesting that show. Turns out the good priest couldn't stand being called to cover for the molesters - and he quit.
Good for him; too bad the rest of the moral priests (if there are any rest of them) don't all quit.
Posted by: theophontes (θεός γαμώτο)
|
March 21, 2011 3:09 AM
Just a quick quote of the Bishop of Verden (Dietrich of Nieheim - 1411):
Posted by: ScottDogg
|
March 21, 2011 3:33 AM
On a lighter note...
To the tune of "It Ain't Necessarily So":
Our God's forgiveness is so great!
Our God's forgiveness is so great!
The pope was defiled by groping a child
And now he has got a clean slate.
Not a thing they do God forbids!
Not a thing they do God forbids!
They prevent the cessation of their molestation
Of all of your innocent kids.
Their crime would be seen as a sin!
Their crime would be seen as a sin!
The clergy have shown that protecting their own
Will keep all the cash flowing in.
The average priest isn't a ghoul!
The average priest isn't a ghoul!
The public, they yell, all do it as well
So that means they're totally cool.
You try to ruin them with haste!
You try to ruin them with haste!
You'll take any chance to sue off their pants
Which is why they're not around their waist.
The altar boy should avoid Hell!
The altar boy should avoid Hell!
His rear will be crammed and he shall be damned
If he should be foolish to tell.
Upon boys is what a priest preys!
Upon boys is what a priest preys!
You say he is dung for corrupting the young
But at least he's not one of those gays.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
March 21, 2011 6:13 AM
#147
Yes you did...by way of innuendo and heavy bias...
#55
And even whined about the balance...
One does wonder if you are not the secret love child of 'donkeybreath' William!
He uses the same tactics...even blaming the victims in Ireland as being in need of strong Jesuit discipline because they were for the most part street urchins that had no morality....at least that is the sub text...bit like your sub text that leans rather heavily towards pointing a bony apologetics finger at 'teh gheys...
Which you have done consistently since #55
#62
That is almost the catholic Cardinals line to a tee...
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
Notice please the line...
"I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia"
In other words when busted for lying his raggedy ass off he can blame someone else for wrong information, nice tactics, jeebus must be proud, denigrating a sub-set of humanity second hand...so brave so honourable...actually very despicable and very typical!
And seemingly a flavour preferred by your drooling over some apologetic 'catolik porn...
Written by a Catholic shell organization 'The Linacre Institute'
#65
You include a a link from 'Psychology today'
Written by a Thomas Plante, PhD
By way of counterpoint to your claims...
So totally independent sources I see...very scientific!
#70
Diversion and undercurrent tending to blame the victims for being devils children intent on having their wicked way with the innocent tools of god!
This is not going well for you!
#74
No! it is Catholic apologetic and for anyone interested in how Jesuit spin points at someone-else to blame for their shame!
One can tell that by the fervor you display at pushing such a biased and therefore tainted tatty screed at the critics, after all it is the only defense, poor and reaching at best, to the RCC's dilemma!
And then for good measure you throw in this superfluous red herring....
Desperation invokes hysterical tactics.
But as long as the investigative beams are deflected...any port in a storm!
Even blaming the seminaries...
#81
Then a nice little denigration of the John Jay Report, just cast shadows...any tactic right?
So a book written by catholics and that you drool over cast aspersion on a not to complementary report.
Then attempts to divert the attention by suggesting homosexuals were the problem.
This is getting boring and rather repetitious.
#83
Yet another book recommendation....
"The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston's Catholic Culture."
Written by yet another Catholic infected bunny...
You don't like non-catholic sources do you, for your ammo?
I wonder why!
This is not about balance and fairness..it is strictly a fire fighting attempt to extricate the perversion of the catholic church from the hierarchy and especially the poopness...your disingenuous in that is noted!
It is about as unreliable as Cardinal Law is at being a decent human being.
A cowardly enabler that believed in jeebus so much that he cowers in the Vatican under Bennie's protection so as not to get arrested by secular authority...
The Catholic Church has very far to go in regaining any trust or respect.
It is extremely doubtful they will.
They are finished...
Their evil is just to gross.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 21, 2011 7:34 AM
Some other comments directed at me in this thread have been little more than personal attacks, dark suspicions, and unfounded claims. I feel no obligation to respond to some of them (for example, the claim that my mother was promiscuous). Such accusations do not deserve the dignity of a response. I imagine many of you, if not most of you, could understand that.
I think I have been pretty forthcoming about the fact that I am a practicing Catholic, that I was in the seminary at one time, and that I have been referencing Catholic sources. I'm not ashamed to be a Catholic, and offer no apology here for that fact.
At the same time, I also recognize that unspeakable crimes have been committed by some Catholic priests against children and young people and that such crimes are inexcusable. Matters were made worse when other Catholic leaders did not acknowledge the crime, and in some cases participated in a cover up of the same.
Many were re-victimized by the fact that when they found the courage to step forward and disclose what had been done to them, they were not taken seriously and were treated as though they were not telling the truth.
The scope of the problem is larger than I realized when the revelations first began coming into the public eye nearly a decade ago.
Victims deserve to be heard, the wounds inflicted against them ought to be fully acknowledged, and their present and future needs ought to be attended to, as much as is possible. The crimes committed and the wounds inflicted cannot be undone, and will not disappear when the responsible parties acknowledge the wrong done, ask for forgiveness and make efforts at reparation.
As a Catholic, I accept the fact that some of the anger that these crimes generate will be directed at me, because I will be seen as a part of the problem by association. Some will assume I am complicit in the crimes. Attempts to challenge any of the accusations or provide alternative data to any of the claims made in the original post above will be seen by some in the most negative light, as a denial of the gravity of the problems, etc. I accept that this will happen, and understand it, even while I believe it is unjust.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to the author of the original post for behaving in a civil manner, sticking to the facts as he understands them, and responding to my comments point for point. He provided a witness of justice that I can only hope to match in my own interactions with those with whom I disagree.
I know that I am not a homophobe. I can understand why some might choose to believe otherwise because of the point I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to make about the profile of sexual abusers in the Church. The point was not that homosexuals are evil, that the blame lies on their shoulders, etc. The point was that it's important to understand the profile(s) of those who have committed the crimes in the past, in order to avoid having the crimes committed again in the future. Obscuring the facts -- including inconvenient ones -- will not help solve the problem. Some considered it offensive that I should observe that the abuse documented in the John Jay Report was largely committed by males against males, and that more than a quarter of the abuse was committed against post-pubescent males.
I don't see this data as a pretense for painting all homosexuals as sexual abusers. I am ready to believe that many if not most homosexuals would never even contemplate sexually abusing a child of either sex.
I have good friends who have homosexual attractions. Among them are some who have chosen to partner with a member of the same sex. They all know that I accept the Catholic teaching re: homosexual acts and the teaching about homosexual persons (i.e. that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, etc.) It has not proved impossible for us to be friends; on the contrary, my honesty with them about what I believe, and their honesty with me about their attractions and their choices, is an indispensable foundation of any authentic friendship we might share.
I also have friends who have been sexually abused as children and whose lives have never been the same since. One even contemplated suicide as a young man. There is no way to quantify the suffering of such victims.
I love the Church and find the failings of her members, and in particular, the crimes of some of her members, to be very painful. At the same time, I recognize that she has to bear with my many failings. I also recognize the heroism and unsparing self-sacrifice of other members of the Church in serving the human community, and aspire, with the help of God, to the same.
That's all I have to say.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 21, 2011 7:47 AM
You don't get to make the call. We do. And I think you have leanings that way.Corrected that for you. Priests aren't members, they are the leaders. Your failure to acknowledge that is painful to see. Your leadership has failed you. Why you don't leave a church lead by criminals makes us question your sanity.And oh, your imaginary deity only exists between your ears. Nowhere else.
Posted by: John Morales
|
March 21, 2011 7:51 AM
clayton:
Your second sentence vitiates your first.
The cover-up goes all the way to the top.
Your beloved Church (in your own words!) excused the inexcusable.
Fucking crocodile tears, how do they work?
<spit>
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 8:17 AM
Wow! "Many, if not most"! That's, like, up to 50%! Hear that, folks? He's definitely not homophobic. You're being dishonest, Clayton. People here did not say that you shouldn't say it because it's offensive. They raised objections, many of which you seem to have glossed over. Among those were:1) If you don't consider sexual abuse perpetrated by men against girls to be a subset of heterosexuality, why do you consider sexual abuse by men against boys a subset of homosexuality?
Easy on the passive voice, there...2) Isn't a majority of male victims what we would expect to see in the case that pedophile priests are perfectly indifferent to the sex of the victim, due to different numbers of opportunities?
How do you feel about the Pope's own role in the cover-up?
Posted by: Giliell, connaiseuse des choses bonnes
|
March 21, 2011 8:19 AM
And it really takes somebody like you to take that as a personal attack and an insult. You really need to re-evaluate your vocabulary. Please look up the definitions of "some" and "other". And while you're at it, look up "understatement" and "euphemism". As a good catholic you are very well trained in putting up a martyr attitude as someone unjustly pursued. You are not part of the problem by just being a catholic. You're part of the problem because you support an institution that has shown to be on the side of murder, cruelty, rape and violence for centuries and because you still think that the hirarchie that fosters criminal behaviour, that relies on authority and obedience has nothing to do with those crimes. Since I don't have an eternal spul to gamble with, I'd have bet all my worldly possesions on this. It was as sure to come up as the word "amen" is in church. Now, can you do a quick recap as to how long that has been the official church teaching and as to when "dirty criminals who chose to rape kiddies" has been the official church teaching? i.e. that they're going to burn in hell for all of eternity unless they ask god for forgiveness for being the exact way he made them. Which you are not entitled to, but which was made possible by secular people who fought against the idea that this was sin and a crime, which you and your fellows still don't accept. Yes, if I have time left over from pitying those kids in Africa who die of Aids because mother church prevented their father from using a condom, and if I have finished pitying those who suffered from your priests, then I might feel with you. Yes, because we are all just fallible humans so the little daily sins commited by a little man are just the same as the rape of thousands of children and the subsequent cover-up Which somehow makes everything right again.I would suggest that you go fuck yourself, but I recognize that only someone like you could be offended by the suggestion of having a little consentualfun with someone's own body
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 21, 2011 8:28 AM
serving the human community, and aspire, with the help of God, to the same.
IOW, you plan to do nothing.
...it's like saying you're waiting for Santa to give you a special message before you decide to give gifts for xmas.
Posted by: KG
|
March 21, 2011 9:14 AM
Telling people their choice of consensual sexual partner means they will fry in hell is not treating them "with dignity and respect", fuckwit.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
March 21, 2011 9:40 AM
Oh no, a persecuted hegemon is sad that we called him out on his homophobic bullshit! But he weeps for the poor children victimized by
PriestsGay Men, and for the mother church.Also, sometimes he lets gays use his bathroom!
Nasty little fuckwit. If you think someone's going to hell, you're not really their friend.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 21, 2011 10:01 AM
The part you don't seem to get is that the overall population includes quite a few conservative religious groups (those who exhibit conservative religiosity accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles as described by the citation), some of those groups quite large. So, the article you cite does absolutely nothing to support your personal contention that Catholics, as a subgroup of the population, are more likely to child rape than the population as a whole.
The article only supports the contention that those who exhibit conservative religiosity accompanied by traditional male-female sex roles are more likely to offend. It is interesting to note that most Catholic clergy do exhibit these traits, and as we've seen, have an increased risk of being child rapists. To what degree do lay Catholics exhibit these behaviors as compared to the population as a whole? The citation doesn't say, and you've provided absolutely nothing to say one way or another. You simply argue that Catholics are a version of Christian, that conservative Christianity with strong traditional male-female sex roles is associated with child rape, and that therefore you feel Catholics probably have an increased risk of child sexual abuse. But Catholic isn't necessarily a version of *conservative* Christian, nor does Catholic necessarily imply rigid male-female sex roles within the Catholic household, two other important qualifiers stated in your citation. To the degree that you ignore these distinctions, you miss the point of the citation and falsely stereotype Catholics as a monolithic group.
It's possible, but you've yet to give any evidence to bolster that conclusion. Certainly those Catholics who fit the criteria of the citation (conservative religiosity and rigid sex roles) would, as individuals, have an increased risk of child rape/abuse, as would those of other Christian groups who fit the criteria. But being Catholic or Christian isn't enough to fulfill the criteria. As a counter-example, my family (with the exception of myself) is Catholic, but neither conservative in their religiosity nor traditional in their sex roles. Now, you can try to argue that we're No True Scotsmen, or you can acknowledge that there is a range of beliefs and parenting practices within Catholicism, only some of which would be good predictors of risk of child rape.
You made the claim that Catholics would (now you at least qualify with 'probably') have an increased risk of child sex abuse. I'm asking you to support that contention with some data to show it is the case. You cannot just assume it to be. In order to prove the point, you'd have to demonstrate that Catholics, as a group, are more likely to commit child rape/abuse than the population as a whole. Your argument, your group divisions. Not mine. I'd personally consider the subset of any religious group - whether Catholic, other Christian sect, or non-Christian religious group - who exhibit rigid sex roles and conservative, dogmatic religiosity as those most likely to offend and NOT make the distinction based on religious affiliation alone. Do you see the difference?
WTF? Where did you get this from? I make no claims for "blaming" any religion. That was your doing, when you made specific statements regarding Catholics. I stick to placing the blame where it belongs - on the subset of the religious (whatever group they belong to) who also exhibit the other traits discussed above and mentioned in your own proffered citation. As for distancing a particular brand of Christianity, and here I assume you think I'd want to distance Catholics... Don't get me wrong. I have no respect for the Catholic Church. The harm they have perpetrated over the centuries is disgusting. Their current cover-up of child rape by clergy is despicable. They are an organization this world, IMHO, would be better off without. It's an opinion many here share. I'll leave the apologia to clayton.emmer. I'll have no part of it. And if you thought I would, then you've jumped to another unwarranted and inaccurate conclusion.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 10:20 AM
Yahoomess, I think you're arguing against windmills here. No one claimed that all Catholics are conservative, or that all Christians are conservative, or that all conservative Christian families have sexual abuse issues. Nobody is treating anybody as a monolithic group.
All I saw being claimed is that conservative religiosity seems to correlate with higher sexual abuse rates, and that this trend probably goes the same way within the Catholic subset of "conservative religiosity".
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 21, 2011 10:30 AM
Why the hell not? You're a member of an institution that aids and abets child rape, gives succor and support to child rapists, and covers up the fact, all while claiming to be a source of moral guidance and leadership. Exactly why aren't you ashamed to be a part of that? By being a member of the Church, by making contributions of your time and effort in support of the Church, by attending mass and making financial offerings to the Church, you are aiding and abetting an organization that commits and covers up felonies. The anger directed at you is not inappropriate, not unjust, no matter how much you don't like it. If you don't want to be seen as an accomplice, then don't be one. You're ready to believe? Ready to believe? So, you don't currently believe this? And you think you're not a homophobe? Uh huh.Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
March 21, 2011 10:36 AM
Anyone who remains a Catholic and is proud of must needs be homophobic to a certain degree. It's part of Catholic teaching. It's like saying, "I'm a member of the KKK, but how dare you claim I'm racist!"
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
March 21, 2011 10:38 AM
erm... Let me try that again.
Anyone who remains a Catholic and is proud of it must needs be homophobic to a certain extent.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 21, 2011 10:52 AM
Meh. So you're not your brother's keeper. No worries. Few of us here believe in the Bible either.
Heh. All the moral certitude without having to bother with that messy 'reading the scriptures central to my belief'. Catholicism for the win!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 10:57 AM
It cracks me up to no end that someone is actually insecure enough to be offended of a 'yo mama'...and is dumb and self righteous enough to admit it.
It illustrates the point I had hoped to achieve when I posted that insult though. This is the mindset of this asshole. Insulting things associated with him are taken as personal insults. This is why he has to defend the church...claims about pedophilia and rape and horse shit on the church are insulting reflections on his character.
I'd agree...but only because by defending heinous actions out of tribalistic egoism he has hitched his character to that wagon.
Translation: The damage we did is irreversible...so there's no need to hold us accountable.
I'd actually like to hear Waltons thoughts on that one.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
March 21, 2011 11:00 AM
Who cares whether Catholic church priests are more prone to child abuse then the general population?
The important reason that they're getting so much flak is that THEY COVERED IT UP!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 11:04 AM
Tell me...did God give any consideration to those of Moloch's church who were not personally involved with the child sacrifice but just wanted to help their peers through spiritual comfort and rituals for increased harvest fertility?
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
March 21, 2011 11:50 AM
#61
2 out of 3 is better then average for theists.
You were not exactly advertising the fact that some catholics can write...but then again your links were not difficult enough to not find the source bias.
You should be!...very ashamed.
Catholics do not like apologizing do they?
Then follows a couple of trite hand wringing sentiments about Catholic priests abusing children
Nowhere near convincing enough because you have made your decision and decided that rapists, liars, criminals, cowards and pedophiles serves your spirituality to your satisfaction.
That tells us more about you then you should feel comfortable with!
The scope of the problem is larger than I realized when the revelations first began coming into the public eye nearly a decade ago.
And you among many of your peers refused to accept the charge until the evidence collected over ten years became overwhelming...way ta go hot shot!
You mean shut them up in house?
The Catholic Church has insisted on pain of excommunication for them not to be, a canon law ruling made by Benny baby himself, what a jolly decent fellow?
In 10 years of haggling and back room deals and the obligatory threats have insured,
for the most part, there will be no full acknowledgement.
Do you not follow your own churches rulings and shenanigans?
But not by the Catholic church one forlornly hopes!
And yet apologists like you continue to tow the church line, you are exacerbating their distress.
At one time the church response was to blame the victims quite openly...some still are!
And still pointing fingers at anyone else except the hierarchy who are still there, still pontificating and still refusing to acknowledge diddly squat.
Cry crocodile tears elsewhere your church is a disgrace to humanity and you support their vileness!
They have spectacularly failed at all three for the last decade.
The Irish repatriations are still not forthcoming...the church blames the bank system apparently.
In the meanwhile the tax payer has to pick up the tab...WHY?
Bullshite ...you write contentious spun flotsam & jetsam trying to imply the blame lays with homosexuality you will get spanked simples!
The Catholic penchant for whining intolerance and discrimination against the 'bhabi jeebus' and his fans is well known and not particularly impressive...they have whined thusly for over two thousand years when caught with their grubby little fingers in the cookie jar...no one takes them seriously anymore.
And so you are!
No assumption about it, cast iron certainly. Without dependable little soldiers like you the RCC has no support network or base to exploit.
They are your delusions they are your church...it IS your responsibility.
Because they are bogus for the most part and spun by catholic sympathizers.
Ahh diddums...it is not unjust if it is true sherlock!
Maybe not...but you fell headlong into the homophobic tones of your cult.
Bullshite!... you were parroting your Cardinals, bishops and their dog in decrying homosexuals by laying the blame at their door...the fact you can only quote from Catholic inspired literature compounds your disingenuous.
It is first important to understand the evil that has stalked in dog collars for millenia.
But I doubt you are capable.
There are indeed inconvenient facts....the church tends to ignore them, it is an old tradition.
And not just about hysterically sexually inadequate clowns, but more prosaic ones like does a magic fairy man really live in the sky?
Fucking liar!
Gasp! pearl clutching commence.
Let us consider that sentence if I can just stop laughing...
"i.e. that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, etc."
You fucking lying scumbag...the last thing the Catholic church teaches about homosexuals is that they deserve dignity and respect.
They do everything in their power to insure they do not get that.
You mean they let you rant and rave about hell damnnation etc etc without kicking your sorry butt out the door?
And yet you continue to support the organization that systematically allowed abuse then covered it up...you really are a disgrace because you have learnt nothing!
And yet you still excuse the church...because you would not even try to defend them if you really knew what it meant.
Not by you...your cult or the enabler in chief Benny!
SOME of her members...SOME!....are you really that besotted....you have my sympathy...but not much!
From pervert to pervert in chief rotten from the ground up!...the stench reaches all the way around the world...jeebus must be so proud!
Good old catholic guilt trip there...nice one enjoy!
Yeah right.....please do not bother you and the cult you rode in on are a menace!
Oh dear, how sad, never mind!
.
Posted by: 617patrick
|
March 21, 2011 11:51 AM
Great article, and your (sizable, intelligent) audience will understand it, but Catholics won't. They live a lifetime of denial.
However, you can stump them with a single question that no one ever asked - what did the Catholic Church do for the VICTIMS of child rape by priests.
The answer, of course, is that they never did anything for the thousands that were raped. Their only job is to lead a good life and to show others by example, and they've proven that they are an embarrassment to God.
Posted by: yourxavier
|
March 21, 2011 11:55 AM
I notice you don't say anything about jail time.
Why not? Don't clergy have to answer to the law, as everyone else?
Cutting to the chase, here: Do you think the church is above the law?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 11:55 AM
Ok show of hands. Who knows ANYONE who is actually ok with gay people who uses terminology like that?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 12:01 PM
Note that I have good friends who are of papist allegiance.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
March 21, 2011 12:21 PM
@Ing
#181
Do you mean if we're fine with the terminology or if we use it?
It does appeal to my occassional need to converse in a very technical manner.
I would have used the term "attracted" as oppose to "chosen".
Like "I have friends who are attracted to members of the same sex." Or "I have friends who have a natural inclination to members of his species of the same gender."
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 12:24 PM
@Uber
I have never seen someone who is not a bastard use a terminology like "have homosexual attractions" or "Of the Homosexual lifestyle" or the like. It has the context of like saying "I have good friends who are of the negro persuasion"
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 21, 2011 12:27 PM
Give Archbishop Dolan a position with British Petroleum, give him the task of explaining the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and would he sound any different? It's all there: the token acknowledgement of harm to the little people, the accusations of "They did it, too and worse", the false-jolly mien of friendship. The only thing that's different is that the Archbishop acknowledged a momentary impulse to violence against his critic. His corporate brethren would know better than to let that slip.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 21, 2011 12:32 PM
Give Archbishop Dolan a position with British Petroleum, charge him with explaining the Deepwater Horizon spill, and would he sound any different? The archbishop doesn't even seem to recognize how revealing it is when church speak and corporate speak can't be told apart. It's all there: the token sympathy for the people who were hurt, quickly followed by a list of similar offenders, all offered with a false-jolly mien of friendship. The only thing a BP spokesman would have known better then to do is to admit to wanting to take a swing at his critics.
Posted by: Coleslaw
|
March 21, 2011 12:35 PM
Sorry for the double post. I really thought the first one was lost for all time before posting the second.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
March 21, 2011 12:40 PM
I have Catholic friends. I even let them use my bathroom.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 12:48 PM
I'm fine with papist cats....as long as they act WASP in public.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 1:16 PM
This part right here:
is "love the sinner, hate the sin"-speak. Through convoluted grammar, the description is distanced from the person as much as humanly possible. It's used not as something they are, not even as an adjective that applies to them, but as something they have./over-analyze
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
March 21, 2011 1:35 PM
@Ing
#184
Hm, you and I must have a different context here. I don't see a problem with the phrase, but that may be that I haven't heard people use them much in either negative or positive context.
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
March 21, 2011 1:40 PM
@Forbidden Snowflake
#190
I can understand what you mean, but the negatively implied connection there just doesn't register with me.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 21, 2011 1:43 PM
@Ubber
Snowflake picked up on it too.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
March 21, 2011 2:03 PM
before I read the thread I have to respond to the last thing suggested "show some humility"
I was the "lucky" recipient of a catholic high school education. I had to take religion classes and church history in addition to the other required classes. one of the things that was emphasized was the "sin of pride" and the "need" to remain humble.
the one thing that does seem to prevail "the church" and christianity in general is not humility. In practice it is and continues to be pride and the attitude of being justified because of the superior "Knowledge" and faith.
I have never seen one church nor have I heard one church official of any kind endorse in practice what their "savior" admonished them to do . judge not least you be judged
They all assume a air of authority and judge and condemn others while they themselves are not questioned/
besides the complete irrationality of the beliefs this attitude is one of the worst aspects of christianity,. this penchant to judge and condemn others sins.
uncle frogy
Posted by: hotshoe
|
March 21, 2011 2:08 PM
Yeah, when I read Clayton saying that, it makes my skin crawl.Homophobic bastard. Well, what do we expect. He's a faithful catholic who loves his church. And he's a former seminarian. Even if he were actively homosexual himself, he would still be a homophobic (self-hating) bastard.
Or else he would have to admit - like every other rational person - that his beloved church is wrong and is a force for evil against humanity.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
March 21, 2011 2:16 PM
"The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word."
Clayton Emmer, these are still anti-gay statements you are making. It is reasonable to assume that someone making anti-gay statements is a homophobe. In any case it is reasonable to denounce someone for making anti-gay statements, no matter what their motivation.
I wonder if you can learn this. I wonder if you can find that human decency your church is supposed to teach.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
March 21, 2011 2:17 PM
Ing: to be fair, context does have something to do with my interpretation. Awkward grammatical choices can be just a cigar, or they can be part of a general attitude. In this context, I find the heavy use of the passive voice in speaking of the Church's crimes and the distancing language re: homosexuality to be somewhat telling.
Ordinarily, "have homosexual attractions" would naturally translate as "bi-curious" with me, I think. As in, attractions that are not "the main course".
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 21, 2011 2:34 PM
I don't think you are over-analyzing it. That sentence seems very carefully constructed to imply acceptance of their "unfortunate infliction", while avoiding either approval or condemnation of them actually accepting their homosexuality and living it freely (as in having a same sex relationship instead of stomping all over those "sinful feelings").
/maybe I'm over-analyzing it now
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
March 21, 2011 3:32 PM
#192 & #193
I agree with Ing & Snowflake...the grammar is at a distance from its subject...a sure sign that he wielder does not want to get to close due to unpleasantness...either hypothetical or church ordained and sanctioned.
Reading the screed of this good catholic clone....I think the latter is more probable!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 21, 2011 6:22 PM
Reading Colton's story, it's clear he was one very sick little boy. Ruptured appendix, rip-roaring peritonitis. Not good. It's also clear that his medical records do NOT say he died or needed resuscitation, just that he was very sick and needed two surgeries.
It is very, very common for patients to report having vivid visual experiences under anesthesia. Roughly a quarter to a third of all patients do so.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 21, 2011 6:26 PM
Sorry. Last post in wrong thread.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
March 21, 2011 6:32 PM
I admire Medecins Sans Frontiere. I think those people are fucking heroes, but if I found that some of its members where raping children and the higher ups were covering it up I'd denounce them, stop being a member and never give them another dime.
Please explain why your reaction is different.
"failings", "painful"? You have a talent for understatement. We're talking about 1) rape and beating of children and 2) a cover up by the Princes of the church 3) Orders from the Vatican to obstruct justice 4) an ongoing conspiracy to harbor child rapists and aid and abet their continuing crimes.
Unless you are a child rapist, or cover up for them (which I have no reason to believe and am not accusing you of) this is an absurd false equivalence. Just because you fancy the knickers off your neighbour's hot girlfriend bears zero relationship to a global conspiracy to protect a paedophile ring within the catholic church.
yes many catholics do good things. If you found out that your neighbour who volunteered at a soup kitchen for the homeless and donated $1000 a month to your favourite charity also raped children or protected his child-raping son - would you still admire his good works, or would they pale in comparison to the enormity of the crime?
Where is your fucking outrage man? Why aren't you and millions of your co-religionists walking out or, if you stay in, demanding that paedophile priests and enabling bishops be prosecuted? Spend your time cleaning up your house instead of whining about how many ebophiles can dance on the head of a pin.
PS: you don't need any help from god to do good.
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
March 21, 2011 11:14 PM
If the head of any other organization were personally implicated in the cover-up of countless cases of children being raped, there would be calls at the highest levels for that individual's head on a plate.
But because Ratzinger has a funny hat and calls himself by a shamefully ironic self-aggrandizing title, he's given a free pass.
By all rights he should be afraid to leave his house-that-is-a-city for fear of being arrested as the head of a global criminal conspiracy to aid and abet the rape of children.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
March 22, 2011 3:24 AM
#202
Religious freaks do...they have no empathy with reality and certainly no humanity...that is why they tend to hate other sections of society so much and in so many different entertaining ways!
They have an altruistic by-pass fitted at inception of the meme....after that they are zombied and brainless clones of the magisterium.
They must be instructed at every level...part of the scam that religion demands.
If not the little bunnies do not make heaven on the backside of life.
But they are told repeatedly that the church knows best, well certainly for the churches benefit, and not to question the sexually dysfunctional clown that pretends to speak for a magical invisible sky fairy.
Thus they are really perplexed that they can do good work and help society without step by step instructions from delusional central.
And delusional central insures that the lie that they require special dispensation and be touched by a creepy sky fairy is the only way to function...the brain dead accept it verbatim, the scam is worked on and polished from birth, the brain dead are conditioned by the Pavlov drool syndrome.
They have no capacity to realize that the church lies continually and deeply.
I used to feel sorry for the victims...now I just feel utter contempt.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 10:24 AM
How does that explain Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Calcutta?Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 10:28 AM
@Clayton
This Teresa?. Teresa was a horrible person!
And is there any evidence Francis of Assisi was a real person? Or if he was, that he had the power to talk to squirrels as alleged?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 10:33 AM
OH and still no comment on your inanity and bigotry towards "Those of faggosexual affliction"?
Jackass
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 10:48 AM
Sorry, clayton.emmer, but the altruistic goodness of Teresa is not self evident. There is there was was a compound where the poor of Calcutta were let in to die in pain. There was no medical treatment nor drug to relieve the pain. The point was the pain, how the pain brough you closer to god.
Funny thing, when Teresa was sick, she did not use her facility. She went to a modern facility where she could be treated.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
March 22, 2011 10:50 AM
clayton.emmer (#205):
Holy fuck, you're holding up Agnes Bojaxhiu as an exemplar of Christian altruism? A neurotic sado-masochist who refused pain relief to people in her care because she thought suffering brought them closer to God? A person who took large sums of money from dictators and criminals, and then defended then publicly? A hypocrite who was quite happy to receive the best treatment medical science could provide while providing substandard, unhygienic conditions in her hospices? A person who squandered resources on missionary work rather than improving those conditions?
Frankly, Anubis's "altruistic by-pass fitted at inception of the meme" comment seems to explain Bojaxhiu remarkably well.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 22, 2011 10:52 AM
Clayton, you keep missing the main complaints, being caught up in your bigotry toward gays.
1) The church, instead of having civil authorities prosecute the rapes, moved around the priests without warning the new parish. That is conspiracy to hide the crime, not what a "moral" orgainization would do. A crime syndicate, yes.
2) When folks caught on to what as happening, and started suing, instead of what would be expected from a "moral" organization, namely "We're sorry, we will fix this", what happened was further cover-ups including the Vatican department headed by a certain cardinal. Who later became pope. What one would expect from a crime syndicate, not a "moral" organization.
3) The church still has not got its act together, by allowing civil courts to prosecute the raping priests, defrocking them when they are convicted, and paying restitution and giving proper couseling to the victims. Also those covering up the mess should be prosecuted to the full extent of civil law, and defrocked if convicted.
4) The pope needs to publically apologize to the world that he mishandled the problem. And he will make it right, and then he must do so in a totally transparent manner. Starting with his resignation as he can't be moral figure with that hanging over his head.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 11:16 AM
No one in this thread seems seriously interested in dialogue, so commenting is a waste of time. Can we all agree on that?
It's fine if you all want to vent your ignorance, anti-Catholic bigotry and Romephobia, but let's not pretend there's anything else happening here.
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
March 22, 2011 11:24 AM
clayton.emmer translation: I can make up big words to mask my total failure!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 11:25 AM
Clayton.emmer translated. None of you will respect my unsubstantiated believes so I am taking my ball and going home.
News for you, I am not just opposed to Catholic faith, it is all religious faith. You are not special you tiny catholic cupcake.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 11:35 AM
Translation: Clayton isn't interested in having a serious dialogue, because we all aren't giving him the responses he would like. Yes, if you are unable to engage people who disagree with you and really think about what they are saying, it will be a waste of your time.Clayton, the fact that you need to run away from this conversation says something about you and your beliefs. Something not very good. Why not stick around and engage us, even though it's uncomfortable? I was stunned when I learned how Mother Teresa was viewed here. Now I know why that's the case, and it isn't anti-Catholic bigotry and Romephobia. You've a lot to learn, and you are afraid. That's okay. Roll with it. Examine the facts, and don't be afraid to see the truth behind the comfortable images you cling to. Honesty and intellectual integrity have their own rewards.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 11:52 AM
No we can not. You are the one refusing to talk
It's fine if you all want to vent your ignorance, anti-gay bigotry, rape appologism and homophobia, but let's not pretend there's anything else happening here.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 11:58 AM
Oh and since you've given up trying to pretend to be a decent person/honest intellectual I'll give you a parting thought.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 12:00 PM
I'm open to a dialogue.
And this isn't my first attempt to do so on this blog.
But we may disagree about definition of dialogue, too.
A few thoughts on that:
http://doxaweb.wordpress.com/2005/09/17/pulling-out-the-theological-trump-card/
http://doxaweb.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/can-the-internet-be-a-place-for-authentic-dialogue/
http://doxaweb.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/comment-boxes-and-dialogue/
http://doxaweb.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/dialogue-requires-a-healthy-mind/
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 12:03 PM
@Clayton
Then talk. All you've done is blame gay, back peddle, then complain about your treatment.
You know why you're treated poorly? You're rude. You sound polite but you're rude, condescending and offensive.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 12:05 PM
Context free link dumps are meaningless.
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
March 22, 2011 12:10 PM
Tone Troll Bigot emmer aside: If the level of horror visited upon an untold number of children (amongst others) isn’t sufficient for someone to leave a morally bankrupt hate-mongering organization, to what end is attempting to engage them in honest discussion?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 22, 2011 12:35 PM
Clayton, now tell us how a truly moral organization should act if it finds its employees raping children. Dialog on that, not about your and your church's homophobia.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 22, 2011 12:38 PM
Clayton.emmer,
Are you? It seems from reading your linked pages that all you are interested in is exposition of your own views and fodder for your blog where you can reply in the absence of dialogue.
I don't like any organization that actively hides criminals. I really don't care how common such crime is within that organization, so long as they hold themselves above the rules of the nations they inhabit the leaders of such an organization are criminals.
I also really don't like being told what I can and cannot do with my body parts. If something I do is hurtful to your deity, that is between them and me, and anyone else who thinks they can get involved in the discussion will be met with little respect until such time as your deity brings their complaint forwards in person.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 12:45 PM
OK, I think you are all proving my point.
There have been five different comments since I posted my links, each of them with very different interests and/or concerns.
Dialogue really isn't possibly between more than two people.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 12:47 PM
@clayton.emmer
Okay, then in that vein, here are a few questions for you:
1. Why do you feel the Catholic Church is an organization worthy of being defended by people of conscience?
2. Why did you say you were "ready to believe that many if not most homosexuals would never even contemplate sexually abusing a child of either sex" rather than simply stating that you believe this same thing?
3. Knowing what you know about the criminal acts of the RCC and the orchestrated cover-up of those acts, reaching to the highest levels of the Church, why are you, as a person of conscience, still a member of that organization?
No, it isn't. Your first attempt wasn't very successful. Analyze what you did wrong, don't repeat the same mistakes, and things will go much better second time around. You can start by not block-dumping links for us to read in lieu of making your own arguments in your own words.
I'm sincerely interested in your answer to these questions. (My particular Googlemess translates to Minorkey on most sites, or you can call me Mike).
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 12:50 PM
I've never had a successful conversation with twenty adversaries at once, each making tangential points which would be manageable by themselves, but not when competing with nineteen other voices.
Which is the first and primary reason why the dialogue didn't work the first time, and probably wouldn't now.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 12:53 PM
Also, this is not my blog, and it wouldn't be right for me just to assume that the people running this site want to make it a forum for dialogue.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 12:57 PM
You are on a blog, a very active one. Lots of comments. What exactly did you expect? You are making excuses for not even trying to have a dialogue. You're also shifting the blame for your own failure to try off yourself and onto the posters here...how dare they ask me more than one question at a time! And I thought you might have been sincere in wanting a dialogue. My mistake.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 22, 2011 12:58 PM
Clayton,
So pick a line and run with it. No one expects you to respond to everyone, but dialogue requires you to respond to someone.
The benefit that an open comment thread has is that a spectator gets to see all of the conversations.
Posted by: Iain Walker
|
March 22, 2011 1:06 PM
clayton.emmer (#233):
Then learn to focus on what you see as the most pressing issues (it will help if you are upfront about doing this, rather than appearing to ignore stuff).
I think what you mean is that you don't feel up to engaging in more than one dialogue at a time. A discussion like this thread is going to consist of multiple dialogues, with different posters engaging with each other over different sub-topics.
You're at a disadvantage in being the lone defender of the Catholic Church here, which means that you're going to attract responses from a lot of different people on lots of different sub-topics, and so you're going to find yourself in multiple dialogues if you try and reply to each person in turn. If that's more than you feel you can handle, then the above advice applies again: Focus on the dialogues that seem to be the most important.
NB: This should not be used as an excuse to avoid the hard questions and criticisms in favour of the easy ones. Rationing one's comments in a thread is one thing; evasion is another.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 1:07 PM
In response to Mike:
There are many reasons. The first that comes to mind is that the Catholic Church is a community that helped, over many years, to develop an understanding of conscience and its role and value within the human community. We tend to take that sort of thing for granted. Honestly, this has been overanalyzed in the combox.I chose the phrase "ready to believe" because one of the primary things I observe in this thread is the unwillingness of many (if not most) to believe anything I write, and unwilling to restrain themselves from immediately imputing bad motives. It is almost to the point that if I were to assert that the temperature is 45 degrees here in Minnesota today, someone would have to take issue with that, and question my motives for a supposed lie. I'm Catholic and don't hate the Church or religion; therefore everything I say is suspect. I'm barely exaggerating.
While I might have more knowledge re: the sexual abuse scandal than the average person, I hardly consider myself an expert on the matter. But my faith isn't primarily dependent on the behavior of the members of the Church. I'm a Christian, not a Montanist.BTW, I provided links because I thought it was a courtesy for anyone who would prefer not to read what I said -- much easier to skip over.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 1:20 PM
And how does that make the RCC unique?
The RCC hierarchy has been dishonest about the issue of child rapists for decades. Rather then expelling the rapists in their fold, they would rather try to keep their image "clean" and hide these criminals in their ranks. These are facts.
You, by trying to defend these actions, make yourself guilty by trying to hand wave away these crimes and cover ups. You have given us every reason to question your motives.
Your faith is giving you a reason to try to excuse criminal actions.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 22, 2011 1:21 PM
Clayton, quit lying. The members of the church are those who fill the pews. The church and its leadership, and lack of moral leadership, is one of the topics under discussion. And you keep failing to address that lack of moral behavior on the part of the church leadership, starting with your pope. Why can't you do that? It makes everything else you say sound irrelevant.Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 1:23 PM
See, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. The first sentence is a blanket statement. Doesn't describe every bishop, every priest, or even the majority of them. So I hardly consider it a factual statement.
The second statement imputes bad motives, presumably of all clerics. Not a reasonable, or factual, statement.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 1:34 PM
Nerd, you wrote:
Lying? How would you know?! You don't even know me from Adam. And even if you did, what moral x-ray powers do you have to know if I am deliberately misleading you?
Nerd, tell me what you need me to say. And then I'll tell you whether it's consistent with the demands of my conscience -- what I know to be true -- or not. BTW, I am not the voice of the RCC, and don't pretend to be. Is it enough for me to represent myself?
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 22, 2011 1:37 PM
Have you tried praying for it?
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
March 22, 2011 1:38 PM
Clayton:
It sounds as though your position is that the entire church hierarchy is completely irrelevant. I think that's generally considered a Protestant position, but okay. If the hierarchy is irrelevant to your beliefs, why are you defending them? The organization is not just Voice of the Faithful: it includes the pope and bishops and all the priests who helped hide their colleagues' crimes.
You're wasting your time here, not because you won't convince us, but because if you really believe those things, we aren't who you should be arguing with. You should be trying to get rid of all the rapists and their defenders who are currently in control of the Catholic church. I don't know whether you should start at your local parish, or whether you should be praying that your god will strike them all down with thunderbolts, and that there will be enough bishops left alive to maintain the apostolic succession.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 1:41 PM
*facepalm*
So, because there are bishops who have not been part of the cover up and are opposed to the cover up, this mitigates the actions of the RCC.
This statement I have just quoted shows just why you are having problems here. Your fucking church has systematically been covering up the actions of criminals. It does not matter if not all of the clerics agreed with it. Being a top down organization, complying with orders from above is a higher good them acting on one's own initiative.
As it pointed out before but if the RCC wants to make good on decades of cover ups, send Cardinal Law back to Boston and have the current Pope step down for his part of the cover up.
And no more shit about how not all clerics were a part of this. That does not matter because it happened, it was systematic and these clerics did not stop it.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 1:44 PM
"The Church is justified, not because her children do not sin, but because they do." - G.K. Chesterton, in The Everlasting Man
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 1:45 PM
First, let me thank you for responding. Next, let me suggest that it is a mistake to take things for granted. You cannot spot problems with your beliefs if you take them for granted. With regard to the RCC's role in forming a community that helped develop an understanding and appreciation of moral conscience, you'd think that if the RCC had a special insight in this area, they'd be the first to recognize the moral depravity of their own actions and the first to take corrective actions, right? Is that what we see in reality, or is it more often external forces or mavericks within the Church who force the RCC to confront it's immoral actions? Consider the possibility that the RCC isn't the moral light you think it to be.
You're fooling yourself if you think this is why people are disagreeing with you. It seems to be your fallback point to avoid some serious introspection about the nature of your own beliefs. Do you have to BE an expert on the matter of felony child rape and organizational cover-ups to decry them as immoral and those who engage in them as corrupt? To not want to be supportive of those who engage in them? Ask yourself this: Is the world better off WITH child rape and cover-up or better off without it? If the answer is better off without, then why are you supporting and defending an organization that supports and protects those who commit these acts? Is that not, in itself, helping to perpetuate the commission of these acts?Re Question #2, you dodged. Let me be a bit more direct. DO you believe (yes or no) that many if not most homosexuals would never even contemplate sexually abusing a child of either sex? Why do you feel people here would have disagreed with you if you directly stated you do not believe most homosexuals would ever contemplate sexually abusing a child? Now, if you DON'T believe this, I can certainly understand why you'd be reluctant to state so here, as it represents a homophobic sentiment, which would get ripped to shreds.
You've cleverly switched the goalposts here. I didn't ask you why you still had faith in Catholic dogma. I asked you why you were still a member of the Roman Catholic Church, given their history of child rape and cover-up. Your answer please? Also, is there any particular reason why you cannot continue to believe the dogma of your choice without belonging to an organization that abets felony activity?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
March 22, 2011 1:50 PM
"The Church is a stinking shit-heap. This is not pretentious bollocks." B. Bumner, in Here.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 22, 2011 1:52 PM
Clayton, if you saying the church leadership is irrelevant, you are lying. It is relevant to any outsider, and to this discussion. You appear to be attempting to defend an organization that is still covering up rapes by its employees. The people doing the cover-up don't matter to you, because you and your friends still get to hang out for weak coffee and bad cookies? You can do that without the benefit of the priests and hierarchy. And by ignoring them, and not supporting them with tithes, you show your contempt for their criminal behavior. So vote with your feet and go elsewhere. Or acknowledge you are defending the criminal hierarchy of the church.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 1:53 PM
No, I didn't say that, and didn't mean that. All kinds of assumptions running wild.
I never said the crimes of clerics were justified, excusable, or not important. But a reasonable mind can disagree with your solution to the problems.
What good would it do to send Law back to Boston? Really, I mean that as an honest question.
As far as the Pope is concerned, most fair-minded observers would note that Pope Benedict XVI has been a remarkable voice for reform... more helpful to the cause of reform than most of his peers. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that he was part of the cover up.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 1:53 PM
Meaningless drivel. Substitute any organization for "The Church" and it remains just as meaningless.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 1:55 PM
You just don't get it. It doesn't HAVE to describe every bishop, every priest, or even a majority of them. Are you seriously suggesting there's not a problem until it does? You will note that the majority of US citizens are not murderers, but this doesn't stop the US legal system from addressing the issue of murder by finding the minority who do commit them and prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law. The majority of teachers don't commit child abuse, but those who do are found, stripped of their licenses, and brought up on criminal charges. Why do you hold the Catholic Church to a lower standard? Can't they, the alleged light of moral behavior, even manage to live up to the standards of civilized society? If not, SHOULD they be considered a source of moral leadership?Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
March 22, 2011 1:58 PM
Is there a logical fallacy that covers blatant bullshit like this? This sounds to me like a god of the gaps argument. We don't have every single missing link, ergo evolution is false. We can't blame every single clergyman of the RCC, ergo they can't be held accountable for the rape, abuse and systematic coverup.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 22, 2011 2:00 PM
Ah yes: the final retreat of the theologian. We are better people than everyone else in God's eyes, not because we're better people than everyone else—and holy fuck we could hardly be worse people if we tried—but because we're exactly the same while telling everyone else we're better than them.
It's like homeopathy. You know how homeopathy works? It doesn't. But that's what makes it so effective, right?
Clickety Click—Barba Trick!
What an unintelligent man you are, Clayton. The RCC is surely glad to have you among her ranks.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
March 22, 2011 2:05 PM
Which is even more laughable given that; a) the deity supposed to be in charge of the RCC is meant to be merciful, omnipotent and omnipresent; b)the living embodyment of the godhead and leader of the organisation is directly implicated in hiding crimes from the police and organising the coverup.
Still, yeah - nothing to do with me gov'
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 2:08 PM
Let's play word substitution to see if the logic holds up. Here's another organization that tried that line of thought: "The Manson Family is justified, not because her members do not sin, but because they do." Do you like where this kind of thinking takes you? It puts you in the position of rationalizing and justifying the commission of sins/crimes. Is that really what you want to be doing?Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 22, 2011 2:09 PM
I believe it's called 'Religion'.
When you've twisted yourself in such a knot that you're claiming that not practicing what you preach is a virtue, you've abandoned the world where words mean something and given up all claims to rationality. You might as well be screaming gibberish and throwing cats.
But, somebody more famous than he said it first, so little Clay here is just tickled pink to be able to chant litany.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 22, 2011 2:13 PM
Clayton, how would a truly moral organization act if it found any employee committing statutory rape on company time/property? You keep failing to adress that issue, which is front and center. And that is where we are coming from, thinking through how this should be handled in a truly moral manner. And your church, despite of its claims of being moral, is behaving in a criminal fashion.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 22, 2011 2:21 PM
@clayton.emmer,
I was raised Catholic and I think I'm pretty clear on what Church is. We were taught that it is a community of believers, almost a living breathing thing where believers are close to the God. I might have overdone the metaphor, but I think the idea is clear. You have also mentioned something similar:
That doesn't mean that when one member of the Church commits a crime, others should in any way be considered responsible. But, if those members are on top of the hierarchy of the Church then other members should in some way react to their crimes. Pope and all the priests are supposed to be God's representatives on Earth. If you believe that they are moral leaders of the Church, those closest to God himself, how can you not consider their transgressions a shame on all the Church? The very leaders of your community have protected criminals in the past, and are still reluctant to let the justice system deal with them.
Shouldn't that demand reaction from other members of the Church? Shouldn't Catholics start asking their moral leaders what they are doing to bring rapists and those who protected them to justice?
You only provide apologies. And even those are heavily laced with moans about your pain and pain of the Church.
You see how easily you meander between considering the Church one big community, almost a being on itself and on the other hand pointing out that what a group of members has been doing for years, even if those members are you leaders, has nothing to do with the rest of the Church?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 2:22 PM
But you sure aren't leading the charge to get them uncovered and tried for their actions, now are you? A reasonable man would see your actions as rationalizing away the seriousness of what they'd done. This is true. I'm sure many a perpetrator (or defender thereof) has disagreed with society's verdict regarding their crimes and what should be done about them. Criminals are notorious for minimizing the seriousness of their actions. So what? What do you see as the solution to the RCC problem? Does it involve seeing that the perpetrators of the crimes of child rape and cover-up are tried and convicted in a court of law and sentenced in accordance with the crimes they committed? Yes or no? If yes, why do you defend an organization that has manifestly impeded efforts to accomplish this?Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 2:24 PM
OK, last post for now. It's not because I'm "running away." I have a full-time job and a second job, and volunteer commitments, so I can really only afford to spend 15-30 minutes a day on blogs, etc. If that's an acceptable framework for ongoing dialogue with one or two people, great. If not, that's great too.
In response to Mike:
No, not really. Human history hasn't borne that out. Every person in the world has flaws and blind spots, up to and including the Pope. He's no exception.The Church's claim of authority on matters of faith and morals is much more specific and modest than most people realize. And as far as the moral behavior of individual members is concerned, the Church has made no special claims. Think: Avignon papacy, for starters... Crusaders, etc. Some indefensible behavior. Things are no different in our own time. I lived for five years in Los Angeles under a Cardinal whose moral credibility was very questionable.
A bit of both, I suppose. It is the same with most human communities. The attacks from without the Church could very well be seen as a gift to stir reform and renewal. Yes. I don't have the data to make the blanket statement that NO homosexual would ever contemplate such. That, it seems to me, would be as unreasonable as saying the same about heterosexuals. Of course it would be. But such a world does not exist, and would not magically appear with the destruction of the Church. We have to do everything we can to prevent evil and do good. I believe the Church to be a force for good in the world.... that it has been in the past, is now, and will be in the future. That's not to say that the sins/crimes of some in the Church (leaders, non-leaders, etc.) are not serious, grave, and a cause for upset. It's not as if the teaching authority of the church, as such, is supporting/covering/defending these acts. Individual leaders, and perhaps groups of them, have been. But their actions do not define their office; instead, their actions contradict their office, and should be treated with seriousness as a result.I don't blame those on the outside who would find it puzzling for anyone to belong to the Church in good conscience. I can understand that reasonable people could have questions about this.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 2:41 PM
You think this current Pope is a good moderating figure? Seriously? He was in on at least one cover up.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 2:49 PM
The New York Times is not infallible, nor even a disinterested party, when it comes to the Church.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 2:52 PM
However, I'll take another look at your link when I have time to review it. Is this from the story that was posted late last year, or something more recent?
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 22, 2011 2:55 PM
You are a sanctimonious schmuck.
Those are RCC documents.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
March 22, 2011 2:58 PM
I did wonder whether that was a direct allegation about the veracity of that document, or merely innuendo intended to cast doubt on it?
Ah, I see from your next post that it was the latter.
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
March 22, 2011 2:59 PM
And with just a tiny moderation:Pope is not infallible, nor even a disinterested party, when it comes to the Church.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 3:00 PM
Look at you, Clayton. Someone posts evidence that the Pope was involved in a cover-up, and you jump right in and dismiss it away with the implication that the NYT made a mistake and is biased. No evidence to support either contention (error or bias) offered. For crying out loud, the NYT doesn't HAVE to be infallible to be right about this, nor would bias necessarily prevent them from getting the story right. Are you so insecure in your beliefs that you won't even critically examine the evidence? Why are you so afraid?
Posted by: Illuminata, féministes fin de jeu
|
March 22, 2011 3:06 PM
Perhaps he's afraid of what some of us probably become afraid of as we realize what a worthless sham faith (in deities) and religion are: that he's starting to lose faith but is scared of the implications of losing faith.
Or, he's just another craven biblehumper whose attention is solely on the personal rewards he will receive after he dies.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 22, 2011 3:25 PM
I will examine the NYT article. Sorry, just a kneejerk reaction after reading many dishonest/misleading articles in that publication, including, if I am not mistaken, the article that accompanied these documents.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/QMglcc1k350HLpr9DO0rVr7fLpYiq_TerQ8-#3f394
|
March 22, 2011 3:53 PM
Exactly. Human history has NOT born out that the RCC has any special insight into moral behavior or moral conscience, and yet you want to look to them for guidance as if they do. Why?
The RCC shouldn't be making ANY particular claims to moral authority if history has in fact borne out that they have no special insight into these matters, wouldn't you think?
While not believing they are also a force for evil in this world. The evil things you dismiss away as the actions of individual members of the Church, while the good things you attribute to the organization itself. A clear double standard.
Weasel words. What do you mean by "the teaching authority of the church"? If you're suggesting the doctrines of the church don't condone child rape, you overlook that those official doctrines do condone hiding the existence of the rapes and their perpetrators within the church.
You've studiously avoided answering Nerd's question, and it's a great one. I'd appreciate it if you'd do so: "Clayton, how would a truly moral organization act if it found any employee committing statutory rape on company time/property?"
This really is the crux of the matter.
Every argument must be examined and judged on its own merits. To judge the NYT piece on the basis that you've disliked other articles that appeared there is fallacious reasoning. After reading the piece, I'd be interested to know what, if anything, you think they got wrong and why.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 22, 2011 7:28 PM
And yet everyone else here does it.
Hell people with ADD here do it.
Though it isn't surprising that you apparently lack the intellectual focus and commitment to preform a simple task, ie talking to more than one person at once.
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
March 22, 2011 11:22 PM
The Catholic Church understands conscience only enough to use it as a weapon. It coerces victims and witnesses, with lies of hell and angry deities, to conceal heinous felonies from civil authority, for no reason other than to protect the cult from a scandal.
That is an absurd and offensive statement. The cult invents the fantasy of sin, then turns it against people to enforce their complicity in a conspiracy of silence.
What good does it ever do to see a criminal face justice? We can only ask the victims what they might think.
Failing to report abuse is not a "failing." It is a crime. Not only the officials, but every member of every parish who knew what was going on and did nothing is guilty as well.
They can claim whatever they like; they have no moral authority whatsoever. As to matters of faith, I have as much authority as they do to speculate on the behaviors and desires of imaginary beings.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
March 23, 2011 11:16 PM
No response. Anyone wanna bet whether he actually ever read the story?
Posted by: lykex
|
March 24, 2011 11:47 AM
And it's a crime which is mandated by the official rules of the organization, so it can't be blamed on individuals. It's a crime of the church as a whole.
Posted by: clayton.emmer
|
March 25, 2011 3:13 PM
I did read the article linked to in comment #254. It was an article I read before, which appeared in the New York Times a year ago this week.
There were extensive responses to it on the internet, including one from Cardinal Levada, who occupies the position in the Roman Curia previously held by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).
I'd post a link here, but I sense an aversion to links, so I'll wait until I can summarize the responses to the NYT article and distill the most important points here in the comments box. Sometime this weekend I should have time.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
March 26, 2011 1:39 AM
*shrug*
I think this is Cardinal Levada's response:
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html
Roundup of commentary and articles:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2010/04/taking-sides-in-vatican-vs-new-york-times/24966/
NYT followup article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/world/europe/06levada.html
It's common practice in science to give all participants access to the source material for debate. I'm interested to hear your interpretation.
Posted by: heretik
|
March 26, 2011 11:56 AM
The Roman Catholic church doesn't get it because they think they are God. Don't give or let someone take unto themselves the power to enact law and absolve sins. It's no wonder they have no fear committing crimes like child-rape. The temptation is ever-present, coupled with the power of God-usurped judgement, the environment suddenly becomes a very dangerous one for helpless innocent victims, namely children. The Roman Catholic church rule by authority not by "truth". Once people are subjugated(conditioned, brainwashed) through fear and/or ignorance/tradition, to obey "authority", "truth" becomes irrelavent.
Posted by: Scott
|
March 30, 2011 11:35 AM
Maybe it needs a nice catchy term that the media would pick up that refers directly to the the cover-up of the pedophilia by clergymen. "Pedophilia by Association", "Conspiracy to Commit Pedophilia", Clergy based Pedophilia, help me out - is it not all about branding now days.
Great article and very good comments - now if I can just get through with the last 100.
Posted by: Catholic4Life
|
April 1, 2011 7:38 PM
I do want to say that God's Word, the Bible, does say: ...and to Peter He said, I give you the keys to the Kingdom, whoever sins you loose with be loosed in heaven and whoevers sins you bound will be bound in heaven (thus, priests ability to be used as an instrument by God to absolve people from sins in Confession). Secondly, the evil one is very frightened of the Catholic Church. It is the Church who is a threat to him and is the most powerful against him. That is why you see scandals everywhere trying to bring down the Catholic Church via scandals against our priests. Do not think for one minute that these things do not occur in Protestant,Presbyterian, or whatever religion. It does. Sin is everywhere and in more magnitude that the secular world prefers to broadcast.The evil one does not seem to be threatened intensely by them. But because the keys to the Kingdom were given to Peter who established the one universal (Catholic) church, the evil one will try hardest 'there' to bring them down. But, as God said, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (the Catholic Church). This is how I see it. Peace.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
April 1, 2011 7:44 PM
God, the imaginary only between delusional ears without any evidence deity, and the babble, a work of mythology fiction without said deity...Loser. Conclusive physical evidence for your deity, or shut the fuck up loser. All else is bullshit...Posted by: John Morales
|
April 1, 2011 7:52 PM
Catholic4Life:
But what you've just said is that you, purely on the basis of faith and contrary to the actual evidence, believe this collection of old and older texts is not really the work of its writers, but of a magical sky-man.
It's a silly claim, because it's clearly people's opinions, and the god-construct referred to in that collection is rather ludicrous.
What's the point of pointing to propaganda?
Silly Catholic!
I note remnants of the Manichaeism which influenced your particular religious synthesis yet persist.
Hell is the stick; heaven is the carrot.
And you're an ass.
Keep your delusions out of politics, if you mean that.
Posted by: CJO
|
April 1, 2011 8:02 PM
Lies on top of fairy tales. There's no actual evidence that Peter (presumably Paul's Cephas --he never calls him Peter) ever went to Rome, or that any apostle founded any institution that outlived the First Century CE.
I will also note that it is an utterly transparent dodge to blame the criminal conspiracy your church has been perpetrating on some mythical evil spirit.
Try "the devil made me do it" in a court of law sometime to see what I mean.
Posted by: John Morales
|
April 1, 2011 8:27 PM
[meta]
... and I can't help linking to Free Will - "God Style" PART 3; Finale by NonStampCollector.
Posted by: pteryxx
|
April 2, 2011 2:58 PM
...Okay... so if I understand this person correctly, they're saying that the Catholic church is the best and strongest weapon saving the world from Satan, therefore we need to sacrifice children to be raped by its priests?
How exactly does child rape *hurt* Satan's cause?