The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Not to be pedantic but 15/100% should be written as 0.15% which is 100 times more than 0.0015%.

Yes 3 hundredths of a percent is 0.03 per cent or proportionately 0.0003 ( 300 per million)
I accept the correction

Are you suggesting that Brendan Smyth was responsible for over a third of all paedophilia carried out by clergy worldwide in that 50-year period?

You are mixing up number of victims with numbers of offenders.
Smyth had maybe a hundred or more victims and would have had a proportionatly large number yes.
AS regards numbers of clerics reported to the vatican he would have been one in 300.
By the way the 300 are cases reported over the last 50 years most of which came from the Us in the 2003-2004 period.
Of the 3000 reported cases ( 300 of which were pedophiles)
Source: http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_mons-scicluna-2010_en.html

eighty percent ( 2,400) of total cases were from the US in 2003-4
AS to due process

20 per cent came to full trial
In sixty percent of cases there has been no trial, above all because of the advanced age of the accused, but administrative and disciplinary provisions have been issued against them
in ten percent of cases, the particularly serious ones in which the proof is overwhelming, the Holy Father has assumed the painful responsibility of authorising a decree of dismissal from the clerical state
n the remaining ten percent of cases, it was the accused priests themselves who requested dispensation from the obligations deriving from the priesthood, requests which were promptly accepted. Those involved in these latter cases were priests found in possession of paedophile pornographic material and, for this reason, condemned by the civil authorities.

AS regards reporting:

In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities
...
In juristiction with legal obligation to report
...
In these cases we do not force bishops to denounce their own priests, but encourage them to contact the victims and invite them to denounce the priests by whom they have been abused. Furthermore, we invite the bishops to give all spiritual - and not only spiritual - assistance to those victims. In a recent case concerning a priest condemned by a civil tribunal in Italy, it was precisely this Congregation that suggested to the plaintiffs, who had turned to us for a canonical trial, that they involve the civil authorities in the interests of victims and to avoid other crimes.

Were his offences included in the 3000 reports to which you have referred?

I would think he was a single case in the 300 ie the ten per cent of the 3,000 who had allegations of pedophilia afgainst them . Not all the 300 were necessarily guilty. and some were guilty not of any particular actions but of possessing pornography.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

OK then ISAW , can I ask you a question or two. Let us set aside just for a moment the larger issue of child sex abuse and society .

Can I ask you how well do you think the Catholic Church handled the Brendan Smyth and Sean Fortune cases ?

Those are specific cases and not larger issued.
going into specific cases is not really beneficial for the general issue.
Hard cases make for bad laws.
But I would think the Church and the State and the general public made mistakes and were naive. It isn't a question of "handling" or "spinning". If it is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Those are specific cases and not larger issued.
going into specific cases is not really beneficial for the general issue.
Hard cases make for bad laws.
But I would think the Church and the State and the general public made mistakes and were naive. It isn't a question of "handling" or "spinning". If it is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped.

No wonder people are leaving the church in droves ISAW when this is the
response. Never unequivocally accept responsibility still seems to be the order of the day.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

Can you please answer the question that I have mentioned a few times on the last couple of pages.
How many cases of clerical abuse investigated by the CDF were passed onto the appropriate police authorities?

Of the 300 anked and answered. In cases wher the juristiction requires it the law is followed.

kbannon wrote: »

What laws can their superiors act upon?
I'm not aware of any law that allows a member of the clergy to be a judge/jury/executioner. Can you please cite this piece of legislation?

Asked and answered!
The Superiour ( local ordinary) must act on the law of the juristiction ( Satte) in which they are located

kbannon wrote: »

You are deliberately misreading what I've posted.

Calling me a liar now eh?

Nonetheless, the church invewstigated severl complaints of abuse and "dealt" with them in whatever manner they decided was appropriate.

No. they dealt with them within the canon law that applied at the time. they didnt make that law up as they went along. Canon law applies to whether the church recognised a cleric as active or not. The state has no such juristiction. Current canon law is such that when the Church had made their decision about the clerical state etc. ( mostly this happens in the local diocese but occasionally in Rome) if the person is required to go in front of civil authorities then the civil authorities are informed and brought into the case.

You ask me to reveal the cases that they passed onto the ploice where they felt it was a true accusation. The church has absolutely no reason to decide what was a true accusation or not. It is an organisation with no remit to investigate crimes.

The Church has the remit to investigate whether someone should be a priest or not. After that if the state has a criminal law requiring the cleric to go in front of a State court the position of the Church is to abide by the law of the land in which they are located.

You refer to church courts. These are as relevant to a society as an IRA kangaroo court. They have absolutely no legal status and are simply a bunch of people who think they are more important that they actually are.

You would be wrong1 they have total juristiction and control over the clerical life and office. Yes a cleric can ignore them or leave the church but that wont make a church decision invalid with respect to the Church. After that if state law requires it the Church procedure is to involve the State authorities.

You also referred to my comments about Smith. Rome it is alleged (by Father Bruno Mulvihill IIRC) had a document referring to Smith's actions as early as the 60s (the norbertines apparently knew as far back as the 40s) but failed to act on it. Needless to say, Rome now cannot find this letter.

So you have nothing but allegations? I don't know about the Rome connection. I believe Mulvihill brought it to the attention of the Norbertine Order and they failed to act on it. I also believe the local ordinary in two diocese was not aware of smyth's behaviour but in one case Mulvahill did discuss it with another Bishop who had sent smyth back to Ireland for child abuse and informed Smyths local Ordinary of that ( i.e. his Abbot). Rome was not involved in any of the above.

As for Smith being extradited, he did commit crimes here and the US, don't forget.

Here being Northern Ireland - for which an extradition treaty did not exist!
It was only after the extradition treaty in the late 1980s that Smyth was extradited.

He also was sheltered by the feckers* in Kilnacrot who actively obstructed the RUC inquiry.

True but again that is the Norbertines fault not Romes.

However, his extradition was delayed by the actions of the DPP here.

True but the process didnt exist at all in law until the 1990s

child abuse had been happening since the 1920 apparently but the state took 50 years to act on it. Now I am not so critical of that since the N Ireland question got in the way of implementing extradition.

Now, lets not get caught up in the argument that canon law has an actual legal standing as it has nothing to do with the discussion of covering up criminal acts.

Im not referring to canon law. I asking under what criminal law of the state could Smyth have been accused. this is all back at the start of this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65039314&postcount=505

It is about "why didnt he report it to the Gardai?" !!!

In asking such a question you have to understand that the criminal law operates for the common good and not in single cases where one decides whether the thing is wrong or not.
I that context you MUST consider other similar crimes.

second in addition to the criminal context you have to consider the social and cultural context at the time. You can't say "why didnt mr x" do something and not consider what Mr Y or Mrs Z would have done in the same situation at that time. When you look at other simiular cases you see that in most cases nobody was prosecuted or even reported under the criminal law. In fact the penalties under law for some of the offences were not as sevcere because the law didn't exist for such a serious crime! Only a lesser offence under law existed. The apparatus of the state was not as effective in investigating such a crime let alone securing a conviction.

In short It is more "what happened in similar morally wrong cases at the time" than any attempt to justify it by saying "others were doing it".

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65028474&postcount=451

nope I have stated it several times - what did you expect Brady should have done?
You are now in 2010 and you hae the internet and all the information at your fingertips.
What do you think Brady should have dnone in 1977?
Gone to the RUC? And reported what?
Did other Catholics go to the RUC? No. did Catholics r go to the RUC about non clerical abuse?

Lets take the Republic. SAy he filed the report and he waited and nothing happened. You are suggesting that a priest involved in a case who has filed a report should go to the Gardai and report a common law misdemeanor? When? Say a year later? doyou eally think in 1978 that a sexual assualt case would be entertained? SAy it was. The Gardai then go to the family and want to take statements and the parents refuse to allow them to. This type of thing happeded regularly with husbands who beat their wives back in the 1970s.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Excuse me?

Allegations of paedophilia reported to the Church authorities are subject to the 'pontifical secrecy' rule; the default position of the RCC is to not report paedophiles to the police.

You are wrong about this!

It only applies in confession!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret

4. Extrajudicial denunciations of crimes against the faith and morals or against the sacrament of Penance, while safeguarding the right of the person denounced to be informed of the denunciation, if his defence against it makes this necessary. The name of the person making the denunciation may be made known to him only if it is judged necessary to have a face-to-face confrontation between denouncer and denounced.

Please don't draw up crimen solicitatis as that only applies in confession also and we have been over it!

If an MI5 agent is a rapist or child abuser he may well get away with it because he is proctected by the official secrets acts but the numbers of such cases are tiny. Most rapists or pedophiles wont be on state business and few abusing clergy use confession to perform the abuse and procedures exist for the victims to expose them if this does happen anyway.

That constitutes protection for paedophile Priests that cannot be availed by teachers or babysitters.

Only iof the poriest is hearing confession! It would be unlikely that a a child under eight wold be going to confession and the numbers of such incidents ae rare and even then Im not aweare of a single case of it being referred to as a "pontifical secret" . You have been reading to much conspiracy theory.

Canon law has been used as a tool to protect paedophiles.

How? which law? what cases?

And with the authority of the Pope.

Which pope? How? what cases?

Let me ask you this with regard to confessor/Priest confidentiality: How many confessions of child sex-abuse should a Priest hear without acting in the interests of children?

none . He is bound to always act according to God's will and do the right thing.

I suspect that you will say that the Priest should never act in the interests of children on the basis of a confession that he has heard.

What examples have you of this? What do you expect the priest to do?
What sort of act?

And diplomatic immunity is just another form of protectionism.

A legal one and you do respect the law don't you? Or should we just ignore it and you be let just pick to abide by the laws you like?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

No wonder people are leaving the church in droves ISAW when this is the
response. Never unequivocally accept responsibility still seems to be the order of the day.

What part of "If it is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped" did you not understand?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

What part of "If it is wrong it is wrong and should be stopped" did you not understand?

what part of '' set aside for a moment the larger issue '' did you not understand ?

People by the thousand have had their faith ripped from them by those in whom they placed the most trust and instead of being met with understanding compassion and unity they face a legalistic tissue of obfuscation and hair-splitting .

You have no interest in dialogue- I am done .

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

what part of '' set aside for a moment the larger issue '' did you not understand ?

Maybe the part that says that one can argue from the general to the particular but not from the particular to the general?

You can't cherry pick out individual cases and say this proves anything about priests in general or about society in general. Yes you can use that individual case to point to individuals in authority who made mistakes. you cant however say it indicated either widespread abuse or a a widespread conspiracy or policy to cover up anything.

People by the thousand have had their faith ripped from them by those in whom they placed the most trust and instead of being met with understanding compassion and unity they face a legalistic tissue of obfuscation and hair-splitting .

You have been shown the Vatican were aware of 300 accusations about clergy over 50 years. 250 of these came from the US in 2003-2004. thats fifty cases ( not all guilty) for the entire world in fifty years. One priest a year! Yes it is wrong but it isn't widespread nor covered up by a conspiracy! Victims are offered support. Generous payments were made without any legal involvement of courts .

You have no interest in dialogue- I am done .

You seem not to want to deal with the facts.
We know some clergy abused children
We know the numbers are tiny in comparison to non clergy but that does not justify it.
WE know the church didn't cover it up but in a small number of notable cases somne bishops did ( some= ten in 100,000 over the period)
We know the church paid generous payments with no questions asked or legal courts needed for the victims to appear
WE know child protection policies were adopted and the church reacted to abuse before the State did.

You are listening to anti- Catholic media spin instead of looking at the facts.

Run away from the truth and keep your hardened heart if you want but it won't change the facts.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe the part that says that one can argue from the general to the particular but not from the particular to the general?

You can't cherry pick out individual cases and say this proves anything about priests in general or about society in general. Yes you can use that individual case to point to individuals in authority who made mistakes. you cant however say it indicated either widespread abuse or a a widespread conspiracy or policy to cover up anything.



You have been shown the Vatican were aware of 300 accusations about clergy over 50 years. 250 of these came from the US in 2003-2004. thats fifty cases ( not all guilty) for the entire world in fifty years. One priest a year! Yes it is wrong but it isn't widespread nor covered up by a conspiracy! Victims are offered support. Generous payments were made without any legal involvement of courts .



You seem not to want to deal with the facts.
We know some clergy abused children
We know the numbers are tiny in comparison to non clergy but that does not justify it.
WE know the church didn't cover it up but in a small number of notable cases somne bishops did ( some= ten in 100,000 over the period)
We know the church paid generous payments with no questions asked or legal courts needed for the victims to appear
WE know child protection policies were adopted and the church reacted to abuse before the State did.

You are listening to anti- Catholic media spin instead of looking at the facts.

Run away from the truth and keep your hardened heart if you want but it won't change the facts.

''hardened heart'' ! talk about the kettle calling the pot black.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

Of the 300 anked and answered. In cases wher the juristiction requires it the law is followed.

I don't understand that response. How many abuse cases were dealt with by the police?

ISAW wrote: »

Asked and answered!
The Superiour ( local ordinary) must act on the law of the juristiction ( Satte) in which they are located

And has this always been the case?

ISAW wrote: »

Calling me a liar now eh?

I never said that.

ISAW wrote: »

No. they dealt with them within the canon law that applied at the time. they didnt make that law up as they went along.

What do you mean canon law dealt with them? Canon law has no legal status so how can it decide?

ISAW wrote: »

Canon law applies to whether the church recognised a cleric as active or not. The state has no such juristiction. Current canon law is such that when the Church had made their decision about the clerical state etc. ( mostly this happens in the local diocese but occasionally in Rome) if the person is required to go in front of civil authorities then the civil authorities are informed and brought into the case.

You mean that the RCC decided on whether the local police were to be informed once they had performed their investigations? What right haver they to effectively block a police investigation?
Why would an organisation think they had the right to decide on this kind of matter?

ISAW wrote: »

The Church has the remit to investigate whether someone should be a priest or not. After that if the state has a criminal law requiring the cleric to go in front of a State court the position of the Church is to abide by the law of the land in which they are located.

The fact that the church decides who is a priest or not is not in doubt. However, there should not be an "After that..."
The church along with canon law should have no influence over the running of a country whether that is in its politics or through its judicial system. For the church to assume that it has a right to be the one to decide on whether someone may or may not be answerable for a crime is an obstruction of justice.

ISAW wrote: »

You would be wrong1 they have total juristiction and control over the clerical life and office. Yes a cleric can ignore them or leave the church but that wont make a church decision invalid with respect to the Church. After that if state law requires it the Church procedure is to involve the State authorities.

See my last point.

ISAW wrote: »

So you have nothing but allegations? I don't know about the Rome connection. I believe Mulvihill brought it to the attention of the Norbertine Order and they failed to act on it. I also believe the local ordinary in two diocese was not aware of smyth's behaviour but in one case Mulvahill did discuss it with another Bishop who had sent smyth back to Ireland for child abuse and informed Smyths local Ordinary of that ( i.e. his Abbot). Rome was not involved in any of the above.

But the allegation by Fr. Mulvihill is that Rome knew of and documented his crimes but failed to act.

ISAW wrote: »

Here being Northern Ireland - for which an extradition treaty did not exist!
It was only after the extradition treaty in the late 1980s that Smyth was extradited.

Here being Dublin apparently.
However, he also committed crimes in Italy, the US and Wales but still nobody stopped him from getting access to children.
Furthermore, victims were dealt with by forcing them to a code of secrecy.

ISAW wrote: »

True but the process didnt exist at all in law until the 1990s child abuse had been happening since the 1920 apparently but the state took 50 years to act on it. Now I am not so critical of that since the N Ireland question got in the way of implementing extradition.

Given Fr. Mulvihill's accusations that Rome knew for long before he sought refuge with the feckers in Cavan, they could have reported him to the appropriate authorities whilst he was "working" in the North, UK, Italy or the US. They for whatever reason decided not to
Instead they dealt with it internally (for what that was worth).

However, the most glaring point from your last post is that you believe (as do/did the RCC that they have the right to decide on what is a crime or not based on canon law. Canon law means nothing. It is a set of rules that the organisation holds. It is not a set of laws and please dont think otherwise.

Festus

Given that we have a presidential candidate who is on the record as stating he has no problem with pederastic behaviour, and as a human and equal rights activist he would presumably have no problems with ephebophiles, and possibly hebophiles, and that various polls suggest that he has the support of large numbers of Irish voters, perhaps it is time this particular thread was put to bed.

It would be hypocritical to maintain this thread and its villification of the Church when the public clearly find potential pederasts are acceptable presidential candidates.

In reading this thread it would be easy to conclude that the only child sexual abuse that occurs in ireland occurs at the hands of clerics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That said, the occurance of child abuse in Ireland is long known and the majority of abusers are married men abusing their own children, or family members abusing the children of their siblings or children. Priests account for a minory of the abuse that occurs in this country. While it is horribly wrong that priests should abuse it is equally wrong that we should target them to the exculsion of those who carry out the most abuse.

CiaranMT

Thread for cases of child sex abuse within the RCC =/= Thread for discussion of a presidential candidate.

Michael G

CiaranMT wrote: »

Thread for cases of child sex abuse within the RCC =/= Thread for discussion of a presidential candidate.

Perhaps not, but the same levels of intellectual rigour/hysteria should apply in both.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

I don't understand that response. How many abuse cases were dealt with by the police?

Of clerical abuse. You would have to ask the police. You have the Church answer. Outside the US, The Vatican dealt with the 50 cases of accusations against clerics over the 50 years of clerical abuse. The ones requiring to be referred to the civil authorities were referred to those authorities. Local bishops were left to deal with the issue and some Bishops made mistakes.

And has this always been the case?
I never said that.
What do you mean canon law dealt with them? Canon law has no legal status so how can it decide?

I mean canon law and only canon law can deal with the clerical office. As to breaking criminal law that is for the civil authorities to decide.

You mean that the RCC decided on whether the local police were to be informed once they had performed their investigations?

They can't decide to refer any case if they were not made awre of it now could they?
In cases where the civil law requires such cases to be referred they are referred. In cases where the law does not require it they are not referred.

What right have they to effectively block a police investigation?

How can they block an investigation into something about which they have no knowledge? nIf after being given the knowledge the local civil authority has a law requiring the matter be referred to them for criminal processing then that is what is done.

Why would an organisation think they had the right to decide on this kind of matter?

Actually in some circumstances they DO have such a right. In the Vatican for example they are a sovereign State with their own laws. They do not come under Italian criminal law. Elsewhere they refer the case to the local authorities if that is what the local authorities require.

The fact that the church decides who is a priest or not is not in doubt. However, there should not be an "After that..."

Fair enough "Aside from that ...
With the exception of the Vatican jurisdiction within the territory of the Holy See"

The church along with canon law should have no influence over the running of a country whether that is in its politics or through its judicial system.

that is a different issue but why shouldn't they? They has a much right to influence politics justice and running of a country as Amnesty International or Medicine Sans Frontiers.

For the church to assume that it has a right to be the one to decide on whether someone may or may not be answerable for a crime is an obstruction of justice.

I didn't say the Church decide on whether someone commited a crime. I stated the church policy is where the LOCAL LAW i.e. local criminal law of the state in which the allegation is made asks for the case to be reported it is reported.

But the allegation by Fr. Mulvihill is that Rome knew of and documented his crimes but failed to act.

Yes that was his allegation. But all we know from him directly is a bishop in the US acted by kicking Smyth out of the US and telling the Abbot of his order.

Here being Dublin apparently.

No here being Northern Ireland from where he was extradited but from where an extradition treaty didn't exist till the early 1990s.

However, he also committed crimes in Italy, the US and Wales but still nobody stopped him from getting access to children.

The link on the US above shows that the local Bishop booted him out of the US for child abuse and sent him home to his order removed him from Children and complained the the head of the order. the Wales and Italy cases are alleged and not proven.

Furthermore, victims were dealt with by forcing them to a code of secrecy.

Well off on another tangent now but...
and your evidence of this "forced code of secrecy" is?

[quote
Given Fr. Mulvihill's accusations that Rome knew for long before he sought refuge with the feckers in Cavan, they could have reported him to the appropriate authorities whilst he was "working" in the North, UK, Italy or the US. They for whatever reason decided not to
Instead they dealt with it internally (for what that was worth).
[/quote]

Yes and they were wrong! But they are not the Vatican. some of THEM by the way include the above Fr Mulvihill

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7069703.ece
warned Alibrandi, formerly the personal secretary of Pope Paul VI, about an “impending scandal of unforeseeable dimensions” concerning Smyth.
...
Mulvihill sought out James McKiernan, the bishop of Kilmore, and repeated the warning. The bishop also seemed uninterested.
...
Four years later, the pieces began to fit together when, working as the abbot’s secretary, he took a telephone message from the bishop of Providence, Rhode Island, America.
...
The American bishop had put Smyth on a plane back to Ireland in disgrace after discovering he had been sexually abusing children in his diocese
...

However, the most glaring point from your last post is that you believe (as do/did the RCC that they have the right to decide on what is a crime or not based on canon law.

Really? where did I make any such claim?

F12

Festus wrote: »

Given that we have a presidential candidate who is on the record as stating he has no problem with pederastic behaviour, and as a human and equal rights activist he would presumably have no problems with ephebophiles, and possibly hebophiles, and that various polls suggest that he has the support of large numbers of Irish voters, perhaps it is time this particular thread was put to bed.

It would be hypocritical to maintain this thread and its villification of the Church when the public clearly find potential pederasts are acceptable presidential candidates.

In reading this thread it would be easy to conclude that the only child sexual abuse that occurs in ireland occurs at the hands of clerics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That said, the occurance of child abuse in Ireland is long known and the majority of abusers are married men abusing their own children, or family members abusing the children of their siblings or children. Priests account for a minory of the abuse that occurs in this country. While it is horribly wrong that priests should abuse it is equally wrong that we should target them to the exculsion of those who carry out the most abuse.

Well, yes, if you only see priests as representing 'Catholicism', but as over 90% of Irish people are baptized Catholics, that surely means that an equivalent percentage of child abusers and buggerers are 'Catholic', whether or not they are clerics?
What made the religious institutions such havens for perversion was basically that there was a value given to the idea that it was a noble thing to offer your sexuality up to God and for priests and nuns not to have sex with others. This is a perverse idea, even going against the deity's alleged dictat of "Go forth and multiply...etc" (no multiplication factor mentioned). So we ended up with a lot of sexually frustrated men and women, some of whom became violent and abusive, and many others who spent their lives in solitude and loneliness. The Jewish rabbis mainly marry, thus giving strength to their community, and as Peter, Jesus' right hand man was married, then why would the RCC change the rules of what Abraham, Moses, Solomon and hundreds of other supposedly 'religious' people had been doing for millennia? The reality is that they wouldn't unless it suited those who had no wish for opposite gender sexual coitus. There is really only one good reason why a man would deliberately choose not to have sex with women, and that would be that it was in his nature not to, just like it is no big deal for a cat not to bark.

F12

Festus wrote: »

Given that we have a presidential candidate who is on the record as stating he has no problem with pederastic behaviour, and as a human and equal rights activist he would presumably have no problems with ephebophiles, and possibly hebophiles, and that various polls suggest that he has the support of large numbers of Irish voters, perhaps it is time this particular thread was put to bed.

It would be hypocritical to maintain this thread and its villification of the Church when the public clearly find potential pederasts are acceptable presidential candidates.

In reading this thread it would be easy to conclude that the only child sexual abuse that occurs in ireland occurs at the hands of clerics. Nothing could be further from the truth.

That said, the occurance of child abuse in Ireland is long known and the majority of abusers are married men abusing their own children, or family members abusing the children of their siblings or children. Priests account for a minory of the abuse that occurs in this country. While it is horribly wrong that priests should abuse it is equally wrong that we should target them to the exculsion of those who carry out the most abuse.

Well, yes, if you only see priests as representing 'Catholicism', but as over 90% of Irish people are baptized Catholics, that surely means that an equivalent percentage of child abusers and buggerers would be 'Catholic', whether or not they are clerics?
What made the religious institutions such havens for perversion was basically that there was a value given to the idea that it was a noble thing to offer your sexuality up to God and for priests and nuns not to have sex with others. This is a perverse idea, even going against the deity's alleged dictat of "Go forth and multiply...etc" (no multiplication factor mentioned). So we ended up with a lot of sexually frustrated men and women, some of whom became violent and abusive, and many others who spent their lives in solitude and loneliness. The Jewish rabbis mainly marry, thus giving strength to their community, and as Peter, Jesus' right hand man was married, then why did the RCC change the rules of what Moses and hundreds of other supposedly religious people had been doing for millennia. There is really only one good reason why a man would deliberately choose not to have sex with women, and that would be that it was in his nature not to.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

You are wrong about this!

It only applies in confession!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_secret


Please don't draw up crimen solicitatis as that only applies in confession also and we have been over it!

I disagree because, from the same article:

10. Any matter that the Pope, a Cardinal in charge of a department of the Roman Curia, or a papal legate considers to be of such importance that it requires the protection of papal secrecy.[3]

means that the application of 'Papal Secrecy' is subjective and could possibly be invoked in any circumstances.

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

Well, yes, if you only see priests as representing 'Catholicism', but as over 90% of Irish people are baptized Catholics, that surely means that an equivalent percentage of child abusers and buggerers are 'Catholic', whether or not they are clerics?

No it doesnt actually. Just as the proportion of pedophile priests at less than a tenth of a percent of clerics is less than the proportion of pedophile priests being les than a per cent of pedophile abusers so to the proportion of practicing Catholics who are abusers may wee be less then the proportion of abusers in society as a whole. I mean for example say society is 90 % Catholics. You might find 80 or 70 or 60 percent of abusers were practicing Catholics.

What made the religious institutions such havens for perversion was basically that there was a value given to the idea that it was a noble thing to offer your sexuality up to God and for priests and nuns not to have sex with others.

That is your opinion. It would seem what enabled institutions (State and Religious) to become high in levels of abuse was isolation of children particularly fostered or orphan children couples with authoritarianism in society. Priests and nuns were celibate for millennia but there is no evidence I am aware of they were havens of pedophiles because of this. Havce yo any such evidence?

This is a perverse idea, even going against the deity's alleged dictat of "Go forth and multiply...etc" (no multiplication factor mentioned).

So you think Buddhist monks are perverse? How about vegetarians? Are they perverse for not eating meat?

So we ended up with a lot of sexually frustrated men and women, some of whom became violent and abusive, and many others who spent their lives in solitude and loneliness.

The argument that celibacy caused pedophilia is ludicrous and already dealt with in this thread earlier.

The Jewish rabbis mainly marry, thus giving strength to their community, and as Peter, Jesus' right hand man was married, then why would the RCC change the rules of what Abraham, Moses, Solomon and hundreds of other supposedly 'religious' people had been doing for millennia?

also already referred to . Protestant clergy also marry but there is not evidecne that this causes Protestant clergy to have less levels of pedophilia. If anything the levels among Jews and Protestants for sexual abuse is much higher than among Roman Catholics.

The reality is that they wouldn't unless it suited those who had no wish for opposite gender sexual coitus. There is really only one good reason why a man would deliberately choose not to have sex with women, and that would be that it was in his nature not to, just like it is no big deal for a cat not to bark.

Again you are suggesting vegetarians and Buddhist monks are perverse.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

I disagree because, from the same article:

10. Any matter that the Pope, a Cardinal in charge of a department of the Roman Curia, or a papal legate considers to be of such importance that it requires the protection of papal secrecy.[3]

means that the application of 'Papal Secrecy' is subjective and could possibly be invoked in any circumstances.

And your evidence that cases of pedophile priests were invoked as a papal secret is?

Maybe the space aliens or unicorns also caused the abuse of children but I don't have any evidence of that either.

My point is "argument from ignorance" . Just because we don't know it isn't true does not mean we can conclude we have logically proven it is true.

F12

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown the Vatican were aware of 300 accusations about clergy over 50 years. 250 of these came from the US in 2003-2004. thats fifty cases ( not all guilty) for the entire world in fifty years. One priest a year! Yes it is wrong but it isn't widespread nor covered up by a conspiracy! Victims are offered support. Generous payments were made without any legal involvement of courts .

So what about all the cases they were not aware of because they simply didn't look or care enough to find out about?
The Pope is supposed to have a direct spiritual link with God, the 'ear of God', is he not? Why, then, did God not 'reveal' all the sickening perversion that his holy men were practicing on practicing Catholic children, and then make sure that it was wiped out?

gimmebroadband

F12 wrote: »

So what about all the cases they were not aware of because they simply didn't look or care enough to find out about?
The Pope is supposed to have a direct spiritual link with God, the 'ear of God', is he not? Why, then, did God not 'reveal' all the sickening perversion that his holy men were practicing on practicing Catholic children, and then make sure that it was wiped out?

For the same reason God didn't reveal what the other 'holy' men were doing to children in other denominations, who are also worshipping the same God!

F12

Quote:
OriginallyPosted by F12
Well, yes, if you only see priests as representing 'Catholicism', but as over 90% of Irish people are baptized Catholics, that surely means that an equivalent percentage of child abusers and buggerers are 'Catholic', whether or not they are clerics?

ISAW wrote:

No it doesnt actually. Just as the proportion of pedophile priests at less than a tenth of a percent of clerics is less than the proportion of pedophile priests being les than a per cent of pedophile abusers so to the proportion of practicing Catholics who are abusers may wee be less then the proportion of abusers in society as a whole. I mean for example say society is 90 % Catholics. You might find 80 or 70 or 60 percent of abusers were practicing Catholics.

How do you know that the proportion of paedo priests is at those levels? Who would admit to being a sodomiser of children? When I was growing up the mere hint of suggesting that any priest was not a 'good man' was likely to get you into trouble, but they existed anyway, and the damage the did was enabled by their being 'moved' to fresh ground.
So you would agree that between 72% (80% of 90% ) and 54% (60% of 90%) of abusers were 'practising' Catholics? If this is so, then were the remainder non-practicing Catholics?



Quote F14:
What made the religious institutions such havens for perversion was basically that there was a value given to the idea that it was a noble thing to offer your sexuality up to God and for priests and nuns not to have sex with others.

ISAW wrote:

That is your opinion. It would seem what enabled institutions (State and Religious) to become high in levels of abuse was isolation of children particularly fostered or orphan children couples with authoritarianism in society. Priests and nuns were celibate for millennia but there is no evidence I am aware of they were havens of pedophiles because of this. Havce yo any such evidence?

It's not simply my opinion - it's a fact that priests and nuns gave up sex to be servants of their god. Are you not saying that this is so?

I would have no basic issue with the cause you mention - authoritarianism in society. Who, or what agency, do you think instilled that sense of authoritarianism into Irish society? Whose influence was permitted to rule and shape this county's thinking, via its laws, its 'ethos', its cultivation of fear and undue respect for power, in the schools, Civil Service and banking?

As for the long history of child sex abuse from the early days of the Church, In a manual for priests called Didache, which was already written and widely distributed by 100 CE, there is a rule that says, "Thou shalt not seduce young boys." The Didache predates the canonization of the New Testament (circa 400 CE).
Another reference comes from the Council of Elvira, 309 CE. The Council of Elvira is the earliest recorded church meeting aside from the Council of Jerusalem. At this meeting, the council proposed "irrevocable exclusion" (or banishment) from the church to those who sexually abuse boys. Specifically, these early church elders wrote, "Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune, even when death approaches." Now that makes sense, so why did it change? Why did it not mention girls also?


The Middle Ages saw the development of many rules applying to the abuse of children. In the Penitential of St. Bede, a guide written by Bede to administer punishment for various wrongdoings, Bede writes that clerics who sodomize boys and girls should be punished by living off of bread and water for anywhere from three to 12 years. (Lombardi) Bede lived from 672 to 735 CE.
In 1051 CE, Saint Peter Damian wrote a treatise called the Book of Gomorrah, and it was openly addressed to Pope Leo IX. The treatise was a complaint to the Pope that there was rampant child abuse in the church and that church superiors were hiding it. Saint Peter Damian also wrote attacks against priests who were married. The Pope responded by only punishing the most serious offenders (those who abused the most for the longest period of time), and said abuse was a spiritual issue, not a criminal one.


Quote F14:
This is a perverse idea, even going against the deity's alleged dictat of "Go forth and multiply...etc" (no multiplication factor mentioned).

ISAW wrote:

So you think Buddhist monks are perverse? How about vegetarians? Are they perverse for not eating meat?

Please stick to the discussion, as I actually said it, and stop throwing red mackerels into the ring.

Did the Judaic/Christian 'God' not go and try to find a matching mate for Adam, when he tried to pair him up with other animals, and then finally created something called 'woman', when he finally worked out that men and other animals can't actually breed?

Where does Buddhist teaching go on about a deity telling them to breed and then contradicting it by limiting certain of his servants having sex? We are talking about sexual perversion, not vegetable digestion. Christianity is an aggressive religion, full of fear of gods and entities, and an obsession on sexuality, whilst Buddhism is non-aggressive and philosophical. Some Buddhist priests do in fact marry, so they have a choice, unlike RC priests.

Perversion is a condition of the mind where corrupted and unreasoned thinking is applied to things in a way that does harm or twists the perception of reality. In all cases, preversion involves beliefs that contradiction can be treated as rational and reasoned. Sexual perversion is any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal e.g. with children, animals etc. That form of perverse thinking would further refer to cases where someone who preaches that children must be protected under the explicit instruction of their deity, but then engages in sex with children whilst still maintaining that they still believed in the deity. That's perversion in both thinking and action (hypocricy), and choosing to believe that it is permissible by any form of excuse making, is perverted also. Denying that it happens is also a perversion, as is trying to make it look like something else.


Quote F14:
So we ended up with a lot of sexually frustrated men and women, some of whom became violent and abusive, and many others who spent their lives in solitude and loneliness.

ISAW wrote:

The argument that celibacy caused paedophilia is ludicrous and already dealt with in this thread earlier.

Exactly where did I say that it did? Sexual frustration gives rise to either anger or depression, both being self-destructive and/or to others. The contradiction contained with the teachings of the RCC give rise to conflict of ideology, contradiction, mixing and matching compromises between what is merely accepted by rote indoctrination and the factual realities of life.

Quote F14:
The Jewish rabbis mainly marry, thus giving strength to their community, and as Peter, Jesus' right hand man was married, then why would the RCC change the rules of what Abraham, Moses, Solomon and hundreds of other supposedly 'religious' people had been doing for millennia?

ISAW wrote:

also already referred to . Protestant clergy also marry but there is not evidecne that this causes Protestant clergy to have less levels of pedophilia. If anything the levels among Jews and Protestants for sexual abuse is much higher than among Roman Catholics.

I wasn't discussing and didn't mention Protestant priests/clergy. I mentioned Jewish ones, of which Jesus was a 'rabbi', a 'teacher', which is what the title or name of 'priest' (prester) originally meant in a non religious way.
Protestants (protesters against the rule of the Church of Rome) worked out that the celibacy rules were perverse, and moved away from such practices, as they considered them to be unnatural, as well as being contradictory to Peter's being married. If Peter was the 'rock' that the RCC was to be built on, then why not emulate his great example, as Jesus obviously had no issues with him being married? Are you capable of giving me a direct and factual explanation for this change of sexual habit, and why things like Mary's ever-virginity were then contradictorily lauded as the epitomy of self-sacrifice to the god?

Do you have reputable and publicly published backup for these comparisons in both Jewish and Protestant clerics?
So why has so much of it come out in the case of the RCC? Does it have something to do with 'control' issues, and the degree of brainwashing that the RCC uses to deliberately deny their realities i.e. blood drinking rituals, praying to the 'Virgin', which is centred around ideas of sexuality, not 'sinning in the flesh', denial of normal sexual needs etc.?


Quote F14:
The reality is that they wouldn't unless it suited those who had no wish for opposite gender sexual coitus. There is really only one good reason why a man would deliberately choose not to have sex with women, and that would be that it was in his nature not to, just like it is no big deal for a cat not to bark.

ISAW wrote:

Again you are suggesting vegetarians and Buddhist monks are perverse.

Vegetarians.....? What's the connection? Does the smell of garlic put them off sex? What is your point? I never mentioned Buddhist monks, did I? You introduced that idea, not me. Are you thinking about changing over? I'm sure I could find you a good recipe for a good old lentil and soya-bean dish.

Buddhist monks are not a good comparison in this case, as RC priests are trained to listen to people talking about their 'weaknesses' and 'sins of the flesh', obsession on 'perpetual (sexual) virginity' of Mary, thus focussing the Christian to try to avoid thinking about sex, which is made impossible one the word 'virgin' is introduced. It's like me telling you not to think about a purple-nosed reindeer with a traffic cone on its head - see what I mean? You can't not think about something once someone suggests it, as the suggestion creates and image in the mind, which it cannot not see - if you see what I mean. That's how imaginary beings get created and developed: by mental imagery that is backed up by fear and love, keeping the member controlled, no matter which way they might wish to go.

Sex-centred ideology is not part of Buddhist doctrine, unlike Christianity and Judaism, with all its veiled references to people 'knowing' each other (carnal knowledge). Buddhism is primarily a philosophy, not a cult of deity, like mainstream religions, though it does have some widespread beliefs going on.

F12

gimmebroadband wrote: »

For the same reason God didn't reveal what the other 'holy' men were doing to children in other denominations, who are also worshipping the same God!

Seems like God must have got fed up with religious types and left them up to their 'practices'.

gimmebroadband

F12 wrote: »

Seems like God must have got fed up with religious types and left them up to their 'practices'.

It's called 'Free Will' and it's not typical of Religion, this sickening evil is everywhere!

F12

gimmebroadband wrote: »

It's called 'Free Will' and it's not typical of Religion, this sickening evil is everywhere!

Well, it's confusing for most people as to what it's all about. The whole area of 'free will' and 'religion' are pretty wide canvases to try to get to grips with for many people, as it's all so subjectively inclined, and we are mainly socially trained to accept our prejudices as being 'right' and 'moral' even if they contradict our objective realities.

Some people say that they are 'religious' and don't do many of the ritual observances of their faith, while there are those who obsess on every taboo and practice to the degree that it becomes pathological, and end up pissing everyone else off.
'Religion', in the sense of it being the dedication of one's homage or respect to the will of a deity or deities, cannot be really deemed 'free will' as it requires the following of dogma, which is unyielding and unchanging in the face of reality, which is a changing thing. Ideas become conflated; truth becomes mingled and merged with beliefs and vague opinions; life becomes about death and loss, and death becomes a promise of 'eternal reward'.
Evil may appear to be 'everywhere' and it's easy enough to understand why people feel disgusted by all sorts of waste and perversion that they perceive as infringing their lives and their world, but the reality remains that evil, as a destructive force, can only exist in minds that either passively accept it as a normality or deliberately use it for their own selective gain. Evil can only exist where there is choice, so only man has the true capacity for choice, by either using reason to evaluate the direction of his thinking, or avoiding his responsibility and ignoring the facts.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

And your evidence that cases of pedophile priests were invoked as a papal secret is?

Maybe the space aliens or unicorns also caused the abuse of children but I don't have any evidence of that either.

My point is "argument from ignorance" . Just because we don't know it isn't true does not mean we can conclude we have logically proven it is true.

Are you moving the goalposts again? You said that Papal Secrecy only applies to confession and I have shown that there a a rule that shows that what you said is not true.

The RCC is in the business of 'targeting' children in order to indoctrinate them; indoctrination is more effective on children than it is with adults. Why does God's message require an organisation like the RCC to spread it?

Where does it say that children should be compelled to fear God and hell?

And what did God do for abused children except to deliver them into the hands of perverts?

God most powerful, most wise, most merciful, simply watches children burn. We would do better as a society without God completely in that child-abuse would not increase due to a lack of religion whereas child-abusers are judged depending on religion. Especially in Ireland.

Is God really enlightened by confession? What need does God have for any church at all?

The RCC is preoccupied with children and gold and that is perverse.

Simples!

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

And your evidence that cases of pedophile priests were invoked as a papal secret is?

Maybe the space aliens or unicorns also caused the abuse of children but I don't have any evidence of that either.

My point is "argument from ignorance" . Just because we don't know it isn't true does not mean we can conclude we have logically proven it is true.

And why bring aliens or unicorns into this?

You expose your hypocrisy with such sensational comments which is funny since you seem to hold the view that sensationalism is what caused the problem for the RCC in the first place, to which I would say that not dealing effectively with paedophile priests is what caused the problem for the RCC.

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

So what about all the cases they were not aware of because they simply didn't look or care enough to find out about?

What about the space aliens or the unicorns being behind it all?

the argument was about a different conspiracy theory- VATICAN involvement and how the
Vatican were meant to have buried cases that they know about. You can't now move the goalposts to change this to non Vatican cases.

The Pope is supposed to have a direct spiritual link with God, the 'ear of God', is he not? Why, then, did God not 'reveal' all the sickening perversion that his holy men were practicing on practicing Catholic children, and then make sure that it was wiped out?

This is way off the mark! You are clutching at straws now! Just because the Pope is believed to influence the church and is elected by bishops to lead it does not mean he can solve all the current problems in mathematics or physics either! By the way God apparently does inform us what evil is but that does not mean the Pope or anyone else has omniscience does it?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

And why bring aliens or unicorns into this?

Look up "argument from ignorance" "proving a negative" and "conspiracy theory" will you?

You expose your hypocrisy with such sensational comments which is funny since you seem to hold the view that sensationalism is what caused the problem for the RCC in the first place, to which I would say that not dealing effectively with paedophile priests is what caused the problem for the RCC.

the problem with the tiny tiny minority of priests who were pedophiles was at its worst about 40 years ago and the church dealt with it. Some bishops didn't! by some I mean say about ten in 10,000 or even in 100,000!

They are not sensationaliust they are pointing out logoical fallacies. Look them up. e.g Ad ignorandum,

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Are you moving the goalposts again? You said that Papal Secrecy only applies to confession and I have shown that there a a rule that shows that what you said is not true.

No i didn't I said Crimen solicitatis only applied to confession!
Of course state secrets could be extended by any State to apply to anything.
But they are not and arguing that the Vatican is using "State Secrets" to hide pedo priests is argument from ignorance as well as a clearly ludicrous thing to do.

The RCC is in the business of 'targeting' children in order to indoctrinate them; indoctrination is more effective on children than it is with adults. Why does God's message require an organisation like the RCC to spread it?

You are clutching at straws again. This has nothing to do with the claim of "Vatican hiding the complaints against Pedo priests"! Deal with the issue. If you want to suggest ther should be no Structure to the church start another discussion or post it in the Protestant/Catholic thread.

Where does it say that children should be compelled to fear God and hell?

I give up where does it?

And what did God do for abused children except to deliver them into the hands of perverts?

Again this isn't an argument about "why does evil exist? " or "why doesnt God personally interfere" ( which also have been discussed in other threads) You are wandfring off topic
which is a claim of "Vatican coverup". Where is your evidence?

God most powerful, most wise, most merciful, simply watches children burn. We would do better as a society without God completely in that child-abuse would not increase due to a lack of religion whereas child-abusers are judged depending on religion. Especially in Ireland.

This is a flagrant charter breach so Ill leave the mods to deal with it. Stick to the topic and don't start attacking religion please.

Is God really enlightened by confession? What need does God have for any church at all?

The RCC is preoccupied with children and gold and that is perverse.

Simples!

ditto! No evidence just unsupported off topic anti Catholic attack.

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

Quote:
OriginallyPosted by F12
Well, yes, if you only see priests as representing 'Catholicism', but as over 90% of Irish people are baptized Catholics, that surely means that an equivalent percentage of child abusers and buggerers are 'Catholic', whether or not they are clerics?

No in fact it doesn't. You find for example that of 1000 people about 900 are Catholics. You also find of 1000 people more than 10 are priests. i.e. priests are more than 1% of siociety
You also find of 1000 abusers less than 10 are priests i.e. priests ae less than 1% of abusers
i.e. the proportion of priests in society is higher than the proportion of abusing priests in society.
You also find that of 1000 priests less than 1 is a pedophile i.e. the proportion of abusing priests in the priesthood is over ten times less then the proportion of priests in society or the proportion of abusing priests in society.

How do you know that the proportion of paedo priests is at those levels?

I gave the stats earlier. Jenkins, Shakeshaft etc.

Who would admit to being a sodomiser of children? When I was growing up the mere hint of suggesting that any priest was not a 'good man' was likely to get you into trouble, but they existed anyway, and the damage the did was enabled by their being 'moved' to fresh ground.

But this has also been discussed. Mythical cases of several priests being moved are constantly quoted. But not of hundreds or even of a hundred. Maybe the lower tens at most probably less ie a dozen or so. Over a half century. Even in that case it does not add to the numbers of abusing clergy just to the number of victims so it does not relate to increasing the percentage of pedo priests in society.

So you would agree that between 72% (80% of 90% ) and 54% (60% of 90%) of abusers were 'practising' Catholics? If this is so, then were the remainder non-practicing Catholics?

No. where do you get your figures. Im saying you might find that half of the abusers were practicing Catholics and you might find the other half were not Catholic at all. given 90 % of society is Catholic that would mean the percentage of Ca\tholic abusers are lower and Catholics are less likely to offend. Yes there would be a lot of Catholic offenders but the likely hood for Catholics to offend would be lower. But I saiod "you might" find it. for the priests i have gone and provided the figures and you DO find it.

It's not simply my opinion - it's a fact that priests and nuns gave up sex to be servants of their god. Are you not saying that this is so?

I am saying celibacy is not shown to cause child abuse!

I would have no basic issue with the cause you mention - authoritarianism in society. Who, or what agency, do you think instilled that sense of authoritarianism into Irish society?

The Irish State allowed the church to assume power it for various reasons. The State are the civil constitutional power and hold that responsibility.

Whose influence was permitted to rule and shape this county's thinking, via its laws, its 'ethos', its cultivation of fear and undue respect for power, in the schools, Civil Service and banking?

Permitted by the State? You are claiming Banking was not influenced by the Church authoritarianism?

As for the long history of child sex abuse from the early days of the Church, In a manual for priests called Didache, which was already written and widely distributed by 100 CE, there is a rule that says, "Thou shalt not seduce young boys." The Didache predates the canonization of the New Testament (circa 400 CE).

I have supplied similar ancient and Middle Age Church laws. You point being that...? Because a alw exists against something this means the lawmakers cause that thing to happen????

Another reference comes from the Council of Elvira, 309 CE. The Council of Elvira is the earliest recorded church meeting aside from the Council of Jerusalem. At this meeting, the council proposed "irrevocable exclusion" (or banishment) from the church to those who sexually abuse boys. Specifically, these early church elders wrote, "Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune, even when death approaches." Now that makes sense, so why did it change? Why did it not mention girls also?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65509576&postcount=862

http://rumkatkilise.org/rayabyzantium.htm#cooliris
Byzantine culture and Orthodoxy are one and the same. All these peoples
became in fact Orthodox.

Now what had they to say?:

Child sexual abuse: historical cases in the Byzantine Empire (324-1453 A.D.)
John Lascaratos and Effie Poulakou-Rebelakou
a Department of the History of Medicine, Medical School, National Athens
University and International Hippocratic Foundation of Kos., Athens, Greece
b International Hippocratic Foundation of Kos., Athens, Greece
Received 13 October 1999; revised 13 October 1999; accepted 4 December 1999.
Available online 7 July 2000.

Conclusion: The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many
instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval
Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious
prohibitions.


Reid, Charles J., "The Rights of Children in Medieval Canon Law" (2007). U
of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-34

Kuefler, Mathew
Love, Marriage, and Family in the Middle Ages: A Reader, and: Love, Sex and
Marriage in the Middle Ages: A Sourcebook (review)
The Catholic Historical Review - Volume 90, Number 4, October 2004, pp.
743-746

The Canon Law On the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later
Middle...
Donahue Journal of Family History.1983; 8: 144-158


In fact when the Greek and Western Roman empire was acceptable of such things there are church rules going back to the third or fourth century against sex with children.

To my knowledge of several places worldwide clergy (well stats in the Roman
Catholic Church anyway which is being discussed above. Protestant and Jewish
clergy may have different stats but little on child abuse is conclusive but
in any case abiove is Roman catholic so let us stay with that shall we?)
constitute one or two per cent of abusers. the above if true however shows
that clergy are either owning up or being singled out since of 1000 abusers
TEN are clergy but 990 are non clergy. If there is a four to one ratio of
conviction that means say you convict EIGHT of the ten clergy then you also
convict TWO of the 990 non clergy!

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades,
less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in
the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.
Alan Cooperman, "Hundreds of Priests Removed Since '60s; Survey Shows Scope
Wider Than Disclosed," Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.

According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests
ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.
Laurie Goodstein, "Decades of Damage; Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads
to Nearly Every Diocese," New York Times, January 12, 2003, Section 1, p. 1.

Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and
1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.
Interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, Transcript of "The O'Reilly Factor," May 3,
2002.

Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately
two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.
Bob von Sternberg, "Insurance Falls Short in Church Abuse Cases; Catholic
Dioceses are Forced to Find other Sources to Pay Settlements," Star Tribune,
July 27, 2002, p. 1A.

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas
Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that "80 to 90% of
all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent
boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than
the young altar boy or girls of any age.
Thomas Plante, "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse,"
www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html.


In fact the stats are HIGHER for Jews and Protestants but that again is a
DIFFERENT topic!

The data on the Protestant clergy tend to focus on sexual abuse in general,
not on sexual abuse of children. Thus, strict comparisons cannot always be
made. But there are some comparative data available on the subject of child
sexual molestation, and what has been reported is quite revealing.

In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church
was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor
reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources.
The conclusion: "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem
in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child
sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are
not clergy or staff, but church volunteers."
Mark Clayton, "Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches," Christian Science
Monitor, April 5, 2002, p. 1

In the authoritative work by Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles
and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests
are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and
3 percent.
Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests (New York: Oxford University Press),
pp. 50 and 81.

Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer is a professor of law and ethics at Loyola
Marymount University. It is his belief that sexual abuse among rabbis
approximates that found among the Protestant clergy. According to one
study, 73 percent of women rabbis report instances of sexual harassment.
"Sadly," Rabbi Schaefer concludes, "our community's reactions up to this
point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do
'damage control.' Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an
atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break
ranks by speaking out."
Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, "Rabbi Sexual Misconduct: Crying Out for a
Communal Response," www.rrc.edu/journal, November 24, 2003.

A review in 2006 of child pornography laws in 184 countries by the
International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and other
organizations including software giant Microsoft shows that more than half
have no laws that address child pornography
^ "Child Pornography Not a Crime in Most Countries" (pdf). International
Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 2006.
http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/Summe...6formatted.pdf.

Reference 62 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_p...y#cite_note-61

Some more stats to add from earlier thresd lst we go over old ground:


http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm#johnjay
based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002. The number 4,392 represents four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.

But the FOUR percent were only alleged! If you look into the report the allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests - less than TWO per cent.

http://www.catholicleague.org/resear...al_context.htm
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse (iv) According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]

iV Alan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.

[v]Laurie Goodstein, “Decades of Damage; Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads to Nearly Every Diocese,” New York Times, January 12, 2003, Section 1, p. 1.

[vi] Interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, Transcript of “The O’Reilly Factor,” May 3, 2002.

[vii] Bob von Sternberg, “Insurance Falls Short in Church Abuse Cases; Catholic Dioceses are Forced to Find other Sources to Pay Settlements,” Star Tribune, July 27, 2002, p. 1A.

The Middle Ages saw the development of many rules applying to the abuse of children. ... The Pope responded by only punishing the most serious offenders (those who abused the most for the longest period of time), and said abuse was a spiritual issue, not a criminal one.

Counter argument of precident predating your Middle age example is above it

Where does Buddhist teaching go on about a deity telling them to breed and then contradicting it by limiting certain of his servants having sex? We are talking about sexual perversion, not vegetable digestion.

Buddhist priests are celibate and vegetarian. There is no evidence either causes child abuse.

Christianity is an aggressive religion, full of fear of gods and entities, and an obsession on sexuality, whilst Buddhism is non-aggressive and philosophical. Some Buddhist priests do in fact marry, so they have a choice, unlike RC priests.

Wrong! Some RC priests are married. But your clear need to go of the topic and attack the church is apparent now.

Sexual perversion is ...choosing to believe that it is permissible by any form of excuse making, is perverted also. Denying that it happens is also a perversion, as is trying to make it look like something else.

So what? the church didn't deny it or say it isn't perversion.

So we ended up with a lot of sexually frustrated men and women, some of whom became violent and abusive, and many others who spent their lives in solitude and loneliness.

You are back to the "Buddhist priests don't have sex so therefore must be perverts" argument. It is a non runner!

Exactly where did I say that it did? Sexual frustration gives rise to either anger or depression, both being self-destructive and/or to others. The contradiction contained with the teachings of the RCC give rise to conflict of ideology, contradiction, mixing and matching compromises between what is merely accepted by rote indoctrination and the factual realities of life.

But the "celibacy causes child abuse" argument only applies to Catholics and not to Buddhists? Who is the hypocrite with double standards now?

The Jewish rabbis mainly marry, thus giving strength to their community, and as Peter, Jesus' right hand man was married, then why would the RCC change the rules of what Abraham, Moses, Solomon and hundreds of other supposedly 'religious' people had been doing for millennia?

Asked and answered in thread. And they may change them back some day.

I wasn't discussing and didn't mention Protestant priests/clergy... If Peter was the 'rock' that the RCC was to be built on, then why not emulate his great example, as Jesus obviously had no issues with him being married? Are you capable of giving me a direct and factual explanation for this change of sexual habit, and why things like Mary's ever-virginity were then contradictorily lauded as the epitomy of self-sacrifice to the god?

Asked and answered.
again just more attacks on the RCC and your central issue of "celibacy causes child abuse" just doesn't stand up!

Do you have reputable and publicly published backup for these comparisons in both Jewish and Protestant clerics?

Yes. Asked and answered. See above.

So why has so much of it come out in the case of the RCC?

Asked and answered. Antio Catholic media bias . see above. You know like the sort of peoploe who claim celibacy causes sexual abuse for Catholics but not for Buddhists or Protestants or Jews?

Does it have something to do with 'control' issues, and the degree of brainwashing that the RCC uses to deliberately deny their realities i.e. blood drinking rituals, praying to the 'Virgin', which is centred around ideas of sexuality, not 'sinning in the flesh', denial of normal sexual needs etc.?

Again more of the tirade of off topic attacks on other elements of the RCC.

Vegetarians.....? What's the connection? Does the smell of garlic put them off sex? What is your point? I never mentioned Buddhist monks, did I? You introduced that idea, not me. Are you thinking about changing over? I'm sure I could find you a good recipe for a good old lentil and soya-bean dish.

Clearly you have double standards. You asert celibacy causes sexual abuse but only for Catholics and not for any other group of people. It is clearly an anti Catholic bias.

Buddhist monks are not a good comparison in this case,

If you claim "cewlibacy causes sexual fustration and sexual abuse then ANY group of celibates is a good comparison. But you are not inclined to accept such comparisons since you only want to attack catholics.

snip more anti Catholic tirade!

Sex-centred ideology is not part of Buddhist doctrine,

Wrong again. Rejection of the material world e.g. sexuality is central to it.

But the Orthodox and other christian churches for example have married priests and don't have a lower level of clerical abuse so even there within Christianity the "celibacy causes sex abuse" does not hold up!