Child abuse: do Protestant clergy not do it?

Tigger

ScumLord wrote: »

Because they've no choice in the matter if it's an American prison.

Your mother was pretty bad at being a nun.

i think this needs moar thanx

InTheTrees

I think its more about the teachers unfortunatly. Or people with access to children. It just so happened that catholic schools had priests in them. I went to a "protestant" school (with no priests/clegy on staff) in the south in the 70's and there were incidents just not be members of a religious order.

I think the catholic church certainly created a perfect atmosphere that attracted these people so there was probably a higher proportion but they werent confined to catholics.

Tigger

M6 wrote: »

They do have this problem but because they are typically small entities it doesn't attract the same attention. I read today of an instance of a JW (ok so they are not Christian)- this dude committed crimes of the same nature.

Check this out:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

The poll is badly worded. I can't vote on it! A simple yes or no or don't know would suffice.

a jehovas wittness is not a prodestant clergyman

this is a crazy tghing to say dude
it is aking to saying that you heard a buill shagged a cow so horses shag cows

Kent Brockman

Yes, child abuse is culturally endemic to the Catholic Clergy

The Catholic Church certainly was a place to hide for males who were 'different'.
Homosexual men were drawn there because their sexual orientation would never come into question, (ie it would be assumed they had no interest in women because of their vow of celebacy, no other reason).
And (even though I may be lambasted for this)true or not, many normal (straight) people draw parallels between being Gay and Paedos,who were able to use their position to take advantage of the situation.

Many others have posted how the power, remote communities, fear of the church, young alter boys etc provided the perfect recipe for what was to follow.

Unfortunately child abuse is rife worldwide and not just limited to the Catholic church (although it did provide the opportunities mentioned above and the cover ups meant that there was multiple reoffenders).

Horrible,sickening and tragic:(:mad:

Hagar

Noreen1 wrote: »

Herd?? Now that's insulting!

Noreen

Does flock sound better? Baaaaa... Baaaaa...

ch750536

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

priests should be castrated - for their own good as well as that of their potential victims.

That'll stop them leaving evidence behind...;)

Noreen1

M6 wrote: »

They do have this problem but because they are typically small entities it doesn't attract the same attention. I read today of an instance of a JW (ok so they are not Christian)- this dude committed crimes of the same nature.

Check this out:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

The poll is badly worded. I can't vote on it! A simple yes or no or don't know would suffice.

Thanks M6. That's a very informative link.

Noreen

PDN

I serve on the Executive Council (equivalent of the Vatican) of a Protestant denomination, and sadly, when it comes to child abuse, Protestant clergy do it just as much as do Catholic priests, as do school teachers, as do atheists, as do Communists, as do footballers, as do farmers etc.

Statistics demonstrate that the incidence of child abuse among Catholic priests and clergy in general is no higher than among the general population. So blaming it on celibacy etc. is nonsense.

The big problem is not the small percentage of priests or clergy who abused children - it is the way those incidents were covered up within the Catholic Church and, in some cases, the abusers were facilitated in continuing their evil practices.

Protestant churches have not had the same issues, not because they are better at covering it up, but because their systems help prevent cover ups. In a more democratic atmosphere (Protestants see all believers as being priests in the sight of God) children and parents feel more freedom to report abuse to the secular authorities. Also, Protestant denominations usually report to their members when clergy are disciplined or removed. This means incidents of abuse by Protestant clergy are usually promptly reported, civil authorities are usually called in as soon as an accusation is made, and the subsequent actions of church authorities are subject to more scrutiny. So incidents of abuse, while painful for all concerned, are dealt with more openly and the abusers are not permitted to continue.

Dont be at yourself

PDN wrote:

Statistics demonstrate that the incidence of child abuse among Catholic priests and clergy in general is no higher than among the general population. So blaming it on celibacy etc. is nonsense.

The big problem is not the small percentage of priests or clergy who abused children - it is the way those incidents were covered up within the Catholic Church and, in some cases, the abusers were facilitated in continuing their evil practices.

Do you have a link to these statistics?

Your two claims are also a little contradictory. How can the incidences of child abuse be relatively the same as with other walks of life, but at the same be facilitated by the cover-ups of the Church? This would imply that priests are inherently less likely to abuse than other people.

jackiebaron

69 wrote: »

Celibacy. Catholic priest may not marry, other religions allow their ministers to marry.

Other than survival, procreation is our most basic instinct, suppress it at your peril.

Are you kidding me? ARE YOU EFFING SERIOUS? Paedophiles do not shag kids because they aren't allowed to shag an adult. How the hell do you explain paedophiles in mainstream society? do they shag kids because they aren't allowed to shag a woman?

So Catholic priest don't shag a woman cos they know God forbids it and they don't want to go to hell. But they bugger young boys because that's OK?

PDN

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

Do you have a link to these statistics?

John Bradford (a psychiatrist quoted in Time magazine) has estimated that 4% of the general population have a tendency to paedophilia http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020429-232584-1,00.html. I have seen other figures (and heard them cited in Conferences) that talk abut 2% (still horrifyingly high IMHO).

Various surveys of Catholic priests generally produce results of between 2% and 4%. For example, Thomas Plante estimates it at 4% compared to the general male population at 8% http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

* Note that child abuse is overwhelmingly perpetuated by males, so a general population figure of 4% will equate to 8% among the male population. This suggests that Catholic priests (who are obviously all male) are actually 50% less likely to be child abusers than the average male.

Your two claims are also a little contradictory. How can the incidences of child abuse be relatively the same as with other walks of life, but at the same be facilitated by the cover-ups of the Church? This would imply that priests are inherently less likely to abuse than other people.

Apologies, I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. I was referring to the incidence of child abuse among clergy (ie percentage of priests who abuse) rather than the number of kids who are abused.

The two statistics are obviously different.

So, for example, the group that has the highest prevalence of abusers is actually the physical fathers of children. But a father usually only has 1 or 2 children to abuse, whereas swimming coaches, although statistically less likely than parents to be abusers, have the opportunity to molest 20 or 30 children as opposed to one or two.

If we want to talk about the actual incidences of children being abused, then a report by the US govenernment indicates that the percentage of children who experienced abuse at the hands of teachers within the US public school system far exceeds what has happened in the Catholic Church.
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf

As i said, it is not the amount of child abuse that is the scandal (although even one abused child is one too many). It is the cover-up.

Osgoodisgood

PDN wrote: »

John Bradford (a psychiatrist quoted in Time magazine) has estimated that 4% of the general population have a tendency to paedophilia http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101020429-232584-1,00.html. I have seen other figures (and heard them cited in Conferences) that talk abut 2% (still horrifyingly high IMHO).

Various surveys of Catholic priests generally produce results of between 2% and 4%. For example, Thomas Plante estimates it at 4% compared to the general male population at 8% http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

* Note that child abuse is overwhelmingly perpetuated by males, so a general population figure of 4% will equate to 8% among the male population. This suggests that Catholic priests (who are obviously all male) are actually 50% less likely to be child abusers than the average male.

A "tendency" to paedophilia is quite different to being someone who acts on it. The stats, while interesting are not quite so revealing.

scottyboy

PDN wrote: »

I serve on the Executive Council (equivalent of the Vatican) of a Protestant denomination, and sadly, when it comes to child abuse, Protestant clergy do it just as much as do Catholic priests, as do school teachers, as do atheists, as do Communists, as do footballers, as do farmers etc.

Statistics demonstrate that the incidence of child abuse among Catholic priests and clergy in general is no higher than among the general population. So blaming it on celibacy etc. is nonsense.

The big problem is not the small percentage of priests or clergy who abused children - it is the way those incidents were covered up within the Catholic Church and, in some cases, the abusers were facilitated in continuing their evil practices.

Protestant churches have not had the same issues, not because they are better at covering it up, but because their systems help prevent cover ups. In a more democratic atmosphere (Protestants see all believers as being priests in the sight of God) children and parents feel more freedom to report abuse to the secular authorities. Also, Protestant denominations usually report to their members when clergy are disciplined or removed. This means incidents of abuse by Protestant clergy are usually promptly reported, civil authorities are usually called in as soon as an accusation is made, and the subsequent actions of church authorities are subject to more scrutiny. So incidents of abuse, while painful for all concerned, are dealt with more openly and the abusers are not permitted to continue.

I think this comment is very well constructed and covers the issues within the Catholic Church as an institution rather than a cause of child abuse. Although it may not be actively harbouring abusers, it does not address the status of followers with respect to the institution of the church, i.e. it values the church more than the people that actually empower the church. This is mainly due to the need for power and control and the hierarchy system that is associated with this. This resulted in the multiple incidences of abuse of children by a minority of priests due to the failure of the institution to put the people first.

As both protestant and catholic religions are in essence both Christian, why should one try to define rights and wrongs as reference to sin and penance, and ultimately guilt, to control their followers. Whereas the other prefers a more moral and ethical doctrine to control their followers.

Either way, I believe the RCC needs to understand that their role in Christianity is as an intermediary between the lay man and god, not the conduit that defines whether or not God accepts you or not.

One aspect of the current debate I find difficult to understand is whether it is wise to continue to allow an institution such as RCC, which is sadly still known for secrecy, to manage the schools of our children. Equally, if religion must be taught at schools it must be in a balanced manner with all religions addressed thus allowing for choice and understanding that one interpretation of one bible of one god is not necessarily the “correct” one (you decide).

Ash.J.Williams

I would say the catholic church is on it's own regarding child abuse and the Protestant church would have the same odds as any other profession of having paedos in their ranks.

M6

Tigger wrote: »

a jehovas wittness is not a prodestant clergyman

this is a crazy tghing to say dude
it is aking to saying that you heard a buill shagged a cow so horses shag cows

I know he is not. I did say in my original post ''ok so they are not Christian''. But the point is, this is not a Catholic problem only - all religions have this problem, and some of them cover it up. Some horrendous things go on in those closed Amish communities in the USA.

cazzzzz

orourkeda wrote: »

They abuse them instead

You have no idea what you're talking about.....!!!!

Owen

Am I the only one who thinks that the imagery used by the RCC doesn't help? If you go into a church, a lot of imagery there is child based. The child of Prague, angels/cherubs depicted as pretty babies, even the statues of the main saints/biblical figures generally have child like innocent faces.

If I was surrounded by that all day long and told to idolise it and to an extent fall in love with it, I'd probably end up kiddie fiddling too.

liah

I'm a bit baffled at some of the responses that scoff at the idea that priesthood itself could be a catalyst for abusive behaviour. Most, if not all, tend to bring it to reductio ad absurdum levels, though.

I want to outline some things before the content of my post to avoid any possible confusion:

1) I do not think all priests are pedophiles.
2) I do not think all pedophiles are priests.
3) I am aware that pedophilia occurs elsewhere in both secular and religious settings.
4) I am speaking specifically about Catholic Priests and/or the priesthood and/or process of in the following-- not regular mass-goers or churches.

Anyway.

I do think it's a bit naive to dismiss the entire idea of Catholicism having an impact on the way people perceive sexuality. It clearly does have an impact when one is brought up under a certain guidebook; for example, look at how many people still believe in no sex before marriage, etc. just because they were raised to think in that way. The church does have the power to influence these things and to assume that it doesn't is being a bit churlish, nothing more than mindless point-scoring without any real desire to understand the matter for what it is.

It's insulting to the intelligence of both parties in the argument to claim that "oh well if it's because of celibacy/the church then why isn't every single Christian male a pedophile"--cop on.
That's not even remotely the same thing as a young lad, a potential priest, spending his formative years in an overbearingly controlled religious setting, having it beaten in from the moment of being shipped off to train that masturbation is a sin, sex with women is a sin (for a priest), impure thoughts are a sin. You are threatened with the burning fires of hell or the wrath and judgement of God to force you to stay in line. You are possibly molested or abused yourself or have witnessed this in your "growing up" in the priesthood, this behaviour becomes standard to you, normal to you, an accepted part of what goes on-- obviously the higher-ups know what's going on and do nothing about it, so that's their outlet.
However wrong it may be, it is what it is. Writing it off by over-simplifying the statement to the point of absurdity does nobody any favours.

I would argue that, in the case of Catholicism, the majority of pedophilia is caused by learned behaviour and is used as both an outlet for their own frustrations and the power trip that comes from controlling someone else rather than genuine attraction to children. Not to say that some of it isn't genuine, but it's kind of like how the majority of rapes come down to power moreso than attraction.

Regardless of the reasons, however, it's unacceptable.

It doesn't help that the church lends itself so freely to abuse and acts as a very enticing prospect for genuine pedophiles-- easy access to kids, automatically placed in a position of trust by the community, word is generally taken over that of a layperson, the pretense of being somehow more "holy" or "good" because they are Men of God and God is "Good." And the fact that hey, if they do something bad they can just confess their sins and get off scot-free-- it's a very convenient loophole. That isn't even touching on the fact that the church actively perpetuated it by covering for those who were abusing children.


When you take it apart it really doesn't seem so far-fetched.

Canis Lupus

Zombie jesus, zombie thread.

liah

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Zombie jesus, zombie thread.

Damnit. Why do I only ever notice the date right after I sink my teeth in. :mad:

Owen

Doh, I didn't check the date either. Braaaaaiiiiiins.

CrazyRabbit

Why is there less child abuse by Protestant clergy compared to Catholic priests?

Well obviously the Catholic boys are sexier.