Expert: homosexuality clearly a factor in new priest abuse data

lmaopml

What I notice there in the article you posted Quo Vadis, is the changing over the decades outlook on what exactly 'is' a homosexual even from the medical professions, and psychology etc etc.

Seriously, the homosexual community had to deal with so much when you think of those times, where could they turn? - No where, not even to discuss it, except perhaps emigrate or join an organisation like the Church, if science and society didn't understand them, then you can bet your ass that they were struggling to identify and reconcile exactly 'what' the fook was going on inside....'isolated'..what a trial to reconcile...

I think to really understand anything you need to get into the psych of that time, and not only the 'religious' persons, but in general the total lack of understanding anything outside the general 'norm'...and that, in fairness, or at least in fairness in my opinion, was not down to 'religion' and 'rules'...

Just take a look at how 'women' had to fight for a vote even over the last century and it should put things in some perspective.

I think the greatest thing we could hope for dealing with this and understanding it, is 'empowering children'...giving them a 'voice', and some real and sturdy protection, whether it be their Teacher or Social Services, that they are provided with a 'voice' and are 'listened to'...I think the 'State' have got a lot to do still - we're a young nation, with limited resources, except perhaps for it's people we export, and it's booms we squander. We put in some great aids during the boom, my sons class in JI still has a teachers aid, also qualified as an sna - even though the IMF are in our country now - but she is 'voluntary'...that says a whole lot about people resources...and what people are capable of, I have great hope in our strenght of people ready to help...

Perhaps the saddest thing would be to my mind to see something 'unnatural' in normal healthy loving family relationships, or any external relationships that affection is seen as 'dangerous'. To become obsessed means that we let the peadophile 'win'.

The peadophile has a different psychological makeup to either a heterosexual or homosexual, we need to start on that premise, that is clearly backed up in studies, and understand that they are 'devious', not that people can't be devious, but this is the most base form - they seek powerful positions, they say they 'don't mean harm, it's their natural makeup and they 'loved' the child, they were only acting it out' - when 'caught', but they know for sure how to gain access and maintain it, and cover their tracks, which also shows that they know that society deems their behaviour on an innocent wrong wrong wrong, but they don't care, they're too sick really - and are most likely not a cranky person, but somebody who is both appealing to children and adults alike.

Unfortunately that profile of appealing to children and adults covers the vast majority of people who are functioning normally too..

I seriously hope we don't become overly smothering, or paranoid, but 'empower children', that's the huge lesson, and arm ourselves with all that education has to offer.

My Mum, who would be a virtual Tigress to protect us, didn't understand when my brother told her he was 'bounced up and down on a CB's knee many years ago and felt 'uncomfortable' about it- she wrote it off as just somebody who was a good person if a little overly affectionate, it didn't even enter her mind that something was not right there...and my Mum was a very normal and protective mum of her generation. It's easy to condemn Police, Social Services, Doctors, hierarchy, even Parents too etc. etc. etc. but you really need to understand, that 'That' lack of understanding, also extended itself into not even discussing homosexuality, that would be hidden really really 'hidden', so much so that we sent them to the religious life, exported them through various underground and unspoken of routes..lol... to the likes of London or Spain, or else we just gave them hell on earth and they felt ostracised - most likely still do.

I think it is grossly unfair, inline with more understanding and perspective and understanding, and appealing to 'reason', which is something we generally pride ourselves on as Christians, to view them as anything other than the way we would our heterosexual Christian.

We 'know' and can clearly state God's law, right and wrong, but I believe that our homosexual faithful would most likely put any of us to shame truth be told... The 'way' is set, it's never been about 'sexual appetite', God knows most heterosexuals have their own problems - or centred around it 'in particular' and nor should it be - it's always been about curtailing natural urges, and prioritising them, and overcoming them to rise above - whether that is 'sexual' or any other appetite, that reduces us, we all have some cross, 'yes' we ALL have something that is hard to deal with if we choose this way of life...but most of us fail, pick ourselves up and move on..

..but I imagine, if justice serves there will be very many and colourful people that share our 'hope'..every single person the very same, judged the same - perfectly.

There's hope yet, for everybody.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

What I notice there in the article you posted Quo Vadis, is the changing over the decades outlook on what exactly 'is' a homosexual even from the medical professions, and psychology etc etc.

There's an interesting article about that change here:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=752

A brief excerpt:

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted — the gay agenda. "It's amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

Thus the scientific bases for what some researchers call "constitutional homosexuality" was weakened. The most widely accepted research still points toward environmental factors such as the role of parents, an early seduction or peer rejection.

[...]

Still, the characterization of homosexuality as a "problem," "illness" or "disorder" is not exclusively Catholic. It was a truism of the fields of psychiatry and psychology until 1973. That year, the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted no longer to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but as a normal variant of sexual expression. The decision was confirmed, by a 6-to-4 margin, in a vote of APA membership. Yet, four years later, a survey found that 69 percent of APA members still considered homosexuality "pathological." Nicolosi says, however, that this is a diagnosis that dares not speak its name.

"Though many mental-health professionals see homosexuality as a disorder," he said, "few are willing to say so publicly. It's not politically correct, and they would be harrassed, called bigoted and homophobic, and charged with inciting hatred."

Nicolosi contends that the APA's 1973 decision "was a political decision made under pressure from gay activists within the profession."

"It was an emotional appeal," he said. "The activists claimed that if we changed the diagnosis and said homosexuality was not a disorder, we would be contributing to alleviation of ostracism and discrimination. That maybe a good intention, but it's not good science — to change diagnosis for social and political purposes."

He points out, too, that subsequent decisions of the APA removed pedophilia, sadism and masochism from the "disorder" lists.

Quo Vadis

lmaopml, that was an extremely thoughtful and well written piece, God bless.


I know videos from this source can sometimes be OTT, but this one is on the right track . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

That's a very strange thing to say, considering that I said it wasn't the percentage that was important,

But if you can't quantify the problem how can you say it is not worse outside the RCC?
BTW I think the percentage quoted is wrong and have supplied for "less than one per cent" rather than "four per cent"

but rather the way the Church "Overemphasised the need to avoid a scandal" and had "insufficient accountability".

And this didn't apply in the case of the other 99 per cent of non clerical abusers?

The other apostles, in other words, are just as responsible as Judas in this case. I have no idea why you would tell me to remember that it's an analogy, as that is obvious.

And again to reenforce the analogy BISHOPS represent today what the Apostles did. There was way less than one twelfth of all Bishops involved in avoiding accountability. In fat from the stats I provided it is closer to a twelve thousandth perhaps than a twelfth.

lmaopml

Donatello, I think we can only go on the basis of what Science has to offer in relation to what causes various different sexual appetites. We, as Christians, or at least in the 'name' of the Church, have absolutely no place 'informing' Science in this regard, that would be a fools mission, and one best avoided imo - we grow in understanding and balance all things. It doesn't change anything at all about our 'faith' and never will - in the meantime, we treat every single person with dignity, that's 'our' business.

Quo Vadis, everytime I see that guy I think of Lego Starwars Luke Skywalker with the mad hair..lol....However, that clip is put together very well, thanks for posting it.

TravelJunkie

Keylem wrote: »

A leading authority on the clerical sex abuse crisis has criticized those who conclude that new data has ruled out homosexuality as a significant cause in the scandal - even though the vast majority of priest abuse was perpetrated against adolescent males.

Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, says criminologists “crossed a line” by pronouncing on the psychological causes behind the data released May 18.

“Analysis of the research demonstrates clearly that the major cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males,” said Fitzgibbons in an interview with the Catholic News Agency. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/critics-say-new-study-misses-real-reasons-for-priest-abuse-crisis/

The new study, conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the U.S. Bishops, shows that nearly 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent and adolescent males. However, the study concludes that available data “do not support the hypothesis that priests with a homosexual identity ... are significantly more likely to sexually abuse.”

The report marks the third such effort by U.S. Bishops to address the causes and manifestations of the clerical sex abuse scandal since it first erupted publicly in 2002.

The data also shows that less than 5 percent of abuse involved prepubescent children, contravening rumor that the scandal largely manifested as acts of pedophilia. But homosexuality, according to Fitzgibbons, was clearly the primary sexual aberration driving the bulk of abuse.

“One can conclude that these priests have strong same-sex attraction,” said Fitzgibbons. “When an adult is involved with homosexual behavior with an adolescent male, he clearly has a major problem in the area of homosexuality.”

The psychologist said that, while the college has done good work collecting data, criminologists “lack the professional expertise to comment on causes of sexual abuse.”

“If the (U.S. bishops) conference wanted an analysis of the causes of complex sexual behavior with adolescents, don’t turn to criminologists,” said Fitzgibbons. “They are not trained to understand those causes - that training is given to mental health professionals.”

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-homosexuality-clearly-a-factor-in-new-priest-abuse-data

It doesn't really matter what orientation they are. The sex wasn't consensual, or it wouldn't have been reported as abuse. Btw, 14 year olds are children and impressionable, anyone with kids will tell you that.

For it to have been a homosexual act, the victim would have have to have been a homosexual - where they? um probably not.

If everyone's looking for ways to improve that this doesn't happen again, very simple suggestion - send all priest offenders to jail. Have a zero tolerance policy, with additional penalties for being in authoritive positions.

gigino

TravelJunkie wrote: »

If everyone's looking for ways to improve that this doesn't happen again, very simple suggestion - send all priest offenders to jail. Have a zero tolerance policy, with additional penalties for being in authoritive positions.

+1. To help avoid the cover up which occured for many decades, with things being hushed up and countless known priest offenders in different countries being sent to other parishes / jurisdictions to continue abusing there, the Roman Catholic church should incur a reasonable penalty / fine - say 1 % of its wealth .

One per cent of 90 billion euro would be 900,000,000.00 euro.

Even if this 1% of its assets was donated to third world causes, that would teach the Vatican a lesson.

Where did you get the 90 billion euro figure from, gigino? I've always been interested in how much the CC is worth, in terms of assets especially. I've never seen a figure like that, though.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

Donatello, I think we can only go on the basis of what Science has to offer in relation to what causes various different sexual appetites. We, as Christians, or at least in the 'name' of the Church, have absolutely no place 'informing' Science in this regard, that would be a fools mission, and one best avoided imo - we grow in understanding and balance all things. It doesn't change anything at all about our 'faith' and never will - in the meantime, we treat every single person with dignity, that's 'our' business.

Quo Vadis, everytime I see that guy I think of Lego Starwars Luke Skywalker with the mad hair..lol....However, that clip is put together very well, thanks for posting it.

You didn't read the article I posted from CatholicCulture.org, did you?

I don't know how people feel able to comment on other people's contributions if they don't do their homework. That article had input from two prominent Catholic psychiatrists. It is not, therefore, the 'Church informing science...'

So, who's the fool here?

gigino

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Where did you get the 90 billion euro figure from, gigino? I've always been interested in how much the CC is worth, in terms of assets especially. I've never seen a figure like that, though.

I googled it. It seemed to be the average of several answers I saw. I guess the Catholic Church owns so much land, property, assets in the Vatican, even gold and shares, its difficult to value it all.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

I don't know how people feel able to comment on other people's contributions if they don't do their homework. That article had input from two prominent Catholic psychiatrists. It is not, therefore, the 'Church informing science...'

So, who's the fool here?

I'm not going to comment on who is or is not a fool, but I will be very slow to trust any research from a Jewish (insert science here) or a Muslim (insert science here) or a Mormon (insert science here), as the scientific method should exclude whatever preconceptions you bring to the table. You can see the disastrous results of fundamentalist Christian evolutionary biologists for example.

Of course, that presumes that psychiatry is a science - I have my doubts on that score.

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on who is or is not a fool, but I will be very slow to trust any research from a Jewish (insert science here) or a Muslim (insert science here) or a Mormon (insert science here), as the scientific method should exclude whatever preconceptions you bring to the table. You can see the disastrous results of fundamentalist Christian evolutionary biologists for example.

All I get from that is a self contradictory argument about excluding preconceptions based upon your preconceptions of what a religious person will bring to the table. Also, what is a fundamentalist Christian evolutionary biologist?

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not going to comment on who is or is not a fool, but I will be very slow to trust any research from a Jewish (insert science here) or a Muslim (insert science here) or a Mormon (insert science here), as the scientific method should exclude whatever preconceptions you bring to the table. You can see the disastrous results of fundamentalist Christian evolutionary biologists for example.

Of course, that presumes that psychiatry is a science - I have my doubts on that score.

Would you be quicker to accept the conclusions of homosexually inclined researchers trying to prove the normality of homosexuality? No bias there at all, mmm?

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted — the gay agenda. "It's amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

Thus the scientific bases for what some researchers call "constitutional homosexuality" was weakened. The most widely accepted research still points toward environmental factors such as the role of parents, an early seduction or peer rejection.

[...]

Still, the characterization of homosexuality as a "problem," "illness" or "disorder" is not exclusively Catholic. It was a truism of the fields of psychiatry and psychology until 1973. That year, the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted no longer to classify homosexuality as a disorder, but as a normal variant of sexual expression. The decision was confirmed, by a 6-to-4 margin, in a vote of APA membership. Yet, four years later, a survey found that 69 percent of APA members still considered homosexuality "pathological." Nicolosi says, however, that this is a diagnosis that dares not speak its name.

"Though many mental-health professionals see homosexuality as a disorder," he said, "few are willing to say so publicly. It's not politically correct, and they would be harrassed, called bigoted and homophobic, and charged with inciting hatred."

Nicolosi contends that the APA's 1973 decision "was a political decision made under pressure from gay activists within the profession."

"It was an emotional appeal," he said. "The activists claimed that if we changed the diagnosis and said homosexuality was not a disorder, we would be contributing to alleviation of ostracism and discrimination. That maybe a good intention, but it's not good science — to change diagnosis for social and political purposes."

He points out, too, that subsequent decisions of the APA removed pedophilia, sadism and masochism from the "disorder" lists.

See here.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

All I get from that is a self contradictory argument about excluding preconceptions based upon your preconceptions of what a religious person will bring to the table.

There is nothing self-contradictory about expecting someone who has a non-scientific agenda to perform slanted research. Is there? Would you trust research about the Jews that was carried out by the Nazis?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Also, what is a fundamentalist Christian evolutionary biologist?

The 'scientists' who back Intelligent Design.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Would you be quicker to accept the conclusions of homosexually inclined researchers trying to prove the normality of homosexuality? No bias there at all, mmm?

There is a clear risk of bias.

Nicolosi points out that all the major studies reported in the early 1990s were conducted by gay researchers or by activists who promoted — the gay agenda. "It's amazing that the same people who accept these studies will dismiss organizations like NARTH for supposed bias," he said.

I would be intrigued to learn how Nicolosi claims to know the sexual orientation and/or political leanings of every researcher in the field. Does he explain how he gleaned this information? If not, why not?

Fanny Cradock

Monty Burnz wrote: »

There is nothing self-contradictory about expecting someone who has a non-scientific agenda to perform slanted research. Is there?

But you never mentioned anything about a "non-scientific agenda".

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The 'scientists' who back Intelligent Design.

A couple of points. Firstly, quite aside from the obvious fact that not everybody who accepts ID is a trained biologist, people who subscribe to intelligent design by definition do not subscribe to evolution, at least not in the sense that an evolutionist does. Secondly, those subscribing to intelligent design aren't always Christian, nor are they necessarily theists for that matter. Sometimes *shock! horror!* they are atheists.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

+1. To help avoid the cover up which occured for many decades, with things being hushed up and countless known priest offenders in different countries being sent to other parishes / jurisdictions to continue abusing there,

Evidence? You have been shown the numbers are in the dozens and possibly hundreds in a population of millions of clergy. In fact you have been shown the evidence in this thread that less than one per cent of abusers are priests. What about the other 99 per cent?You probably have a higher chance of being hit and killed by a priest driving a car then being abused by one. Now when it comes to read deaths and less than one per cent of accidents are caused by priests would you have a campaign against "road rage priests" and insist the Vatican pay all the damage caused by them or might you actually be interested in the other 99 per cent plus of deaths caused by non priest drivers?

the Roman Catholic church should incur a reasonable penalty / fine - say 1 % of its wealth

Several diocese have paid hundreds of millions into funds for abused people. The Boston diocese was bankrupted because of that I think and in Ireland religious orders did pay hundreds of millions in cash and property into a fund for compensation. I don't think giving a Renaissance painting to a victim will solve much do you?

One per cent of 90 billion euro would be 900,000,000.00 euro.

Just in Ireland: In February 2002, 18 religious orders agreed to provide more than 128 million Euros. In 2009 the orders agreed to increase their contribution; it was learned that total compensation paid to victims was about €1.2 billion,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

As it happens though victims have stated that they want a change of culture and admissions of guilt and apologies rather than money. Also state organisations have found legal wranglings just prolong the duration of each case possibloey for decades so in ireland they decided to set up a fund and pay people out of it without going through each case ( they don't have "class action" law in Ireland)

Even if this 1% of its assets was donated to third world causes, that would teach the Vatican a lesson.

That is an unreasonable argument for the reasons given. Emptying all the vatican bank accounts will not solve a problem of organisation or accountability no more than emptying bank accounts did for financial systems. the system has to be fixed and cheks and balances put into it.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown the numbers are in the dozens and possibly hundreds in a population of millions of clergy. .

Do not fool yourself about the above ! From your own source, wikipedia:
"In 2004, at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States"
Thats in one year in one country. Here in Ireland many people are aware of the cover-ups, hushing, finger to the mouth etc. A lot went on which has never been reported because people do not want to rake up the past / open old wounds. Shame on the Roman Catholic Church for a century of abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

Emptying all the vatican bank accounts will not solve a problem of organisation or accountability ....

Nobody said it would, but if the Vatican gave a reasonable proportion of its wealth - estimated at 900 billion ( not million ) - to charity , as a token of its remorse and as an apology to its victims, that would teach it a lesson.

Solair

Well, I think one thing the Catholic Church fails to address is the fact that it has a policy of sexually oppressing its employees and that this might have an impact on their behaviour?

Being completely celibate is a totally unnatural set of circumstances for any living creature. So, forcing a group of people to deny themselves any sexual outlet is obviously going to create problems.

I am not excusing their behaviour towards children, that is absolutely vile and sickening and quite honestly unforgivable, but if we are going to look at any factor that has predisposed priests and other religious to abusing children, it would seem that their completely asexual lifestyle has to be a major factor.

I would much rather a situation where priests, nuns and other religious could have normal sexual and romantic relationships with other adults. I don't really care whether they are heterosexual or homosexual but, I would really prefer that they had a normal outlet for their desires.

I have no issue with people being homosexual and I do not think that there is any reason why a homosexual man or woman is any threat to children. However, I do have an issue and do have concerns about anyone who is denying their own sexuality and bottling up their desires being left in control of children or vulnerable adults.

I would feel far safer that an out gay guy who had a partner and a normal attitude to his sex life was looking after my kids than a sexually repressed priest or nun.

I think the Catholic Church's problem is that it sees sex as evil / dirty and abnormal so it oppresses it and causes it to be pushed underground and to come out in all sorts of weird and abusive ways and also that its medieval management structures are completely incapable of dealing with anything.

All the church seems to care about is covering up and protecting its own 'good name' and in the process it has destroyed itself and done immeasurable damage to a hell of a lot of children and adults in the process.

I just feel as an organisation that it is dangerously dysfunctional.

I am passing no comment on its theology or on christianity in general, just on the way this organisation has morphed into a bit of a monster.

Fanny Cradock

Solair wrote: »

Well, I think one thing the Catholic Church fails to address is the fact that it has a policy of sexually oppressing its employees and that this might have an impact on their behaviour?

Being completely celibate is a totally unnatural set of circumstances for any living creature. So, forcing a group of people to deny themselves any sexual outlet is obviously going to create problems.

I am not excusing their behaviour towards children, that is absolutely vile and sickening and quite honestly unforgivable, but if we are going to look at any factor that has predisposed priests and other religious to abusing children, it would seem that their completely asexual lifestyle has to be a major factor.

Are you suggesting that celibacy is a contributing factor to the desire to abuse children?

PDN

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think trying to pin the blame upon celibacy is nonsense.

The majority of paedophile offenders are married men - not celibates.

Child abuse has little or nothing to do with a sexually frustrated person seeking an outlet. It has everything to do with power. Child abusers tend to be people who feel powerless for one reason or another, and they therefore gain emotional gratification by abusing someone less powerful than themselves. With child abuse, as with most rapes, sex has remarkably little to do with it.

Solair

I'm just saying it's a bad combination of situations:

Absolute power over vulnerably kids/adults, secrecy, an element of infallibility, very abnormal attitudes to sex, celibacy and a management system that only wanted to protect its reputation / respectability and one that is backed-up by the fact it has its own independent state!

The whole setup is a sick mess and would warrant decades of research by a team of forensic psychologists and law enforcement agencies.

Basically, I wouldn't want my kids anywhere near the organisation(s).

I do not see any serious evidence of the Church changing either. It still seems to go on with denials, cover-ups and smoke screens. Until that is addressed, it is not going anywhere other than into a deeper spiral of a mess.

I just keep hearing the odd positive voice and someone trying to do something about it followed by an immediate old-style comment from the hierarchy like the above article.

Maybe it's just not capable of change, it does not seem to be. In which case, it will just fade into obscurity. That's the choice it faces. People vote with their feet and their pockets.

I think it's a terrible pity that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is so incapable of dealing with this as a lot of people put a lot of time and effort into the church and it does have lots of positive aspects.

However, that does not mean that it is not dysfunctional as an organisation.

Monty Burnz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But you never mentioned anything about a "non-scientific agenda".

I did. I didn't label it 'non-scientific' though - I thought it was too obvious to be necessary. But I was wrong, it seems.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

A couple of points. Firstly, quite aside from the obvious fact that not everybody who accepts ID is a trained biologist, people who subscribe to intelligent design by definition do not subscribe to evolution, at least not in the sense that an evolutionist does. Secondly, those subscribing to intelligent design aren't always Christian, nor are they necessarily theists for that matter. Sometimes *shock! horror!* they are atheists.

Right. None of which contradicts the point I made. This isn't up to your usual standards Fanny, unless you are just looking for an argument?

Ayla

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Are you suggesting that celibacy is a contributing factor to the desire to abuse children?

It would be interesting to see any stats out there that compare the rates of child abuse conducted by RRC priests (celibate) versus that done by (non-celibate, frequently married) leaders of other denominations. Do these stats exist?

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I am not a Roman Catholic, but I think trying to pin the blame upon celibacy is nonsense.

The majority of paedophile offenders are married men - not celibates.

Child abuse has little or nothing to do with a sexually frustrated person seeking an outlet. It has everything to do with power. Child abusers tend to be people who feel powerless for one reason or another, and they therefore gain emotional gratification by abusing someone less powerful than themselves. With child abuse, as with most rapes, sex has remarkably little to do with it.

Good points. Enforced celibacy is not THE cause. But it is a contributing factor at least. Sex drives that were meant to be controlled by marriage tend to tempt people to look for other outlets. Mix that with the temptation of power, and adult rape and child sex-abuse are not unlikely outcomes in such a community.

We can see how that applies to family situations also - a lustful, jaded palate in a father may turn him from his wife to his daughter, given his powerful position.

I'm sure feeling powerless is a circumstance for some - but being powerful can be a factor for many, revealing their true nature. It certainly accounts for the behaviour of many of the rich & powerful in history.

***************************************************************************
James 5:1 Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! 2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. 4 Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. 5 You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you.

Fanny Cradock

Ayla wrote: »

It would be interesting to see any stats out there that compare the rates of child abuse conducted by RRC priests (celibate) versus that done by (non-celibate, frequently married) leaders of other denominations. Do these stats exist?

While not exactly what you are asking for, I think there probably are stats out there comparing abuse rates amongst the clergy to non-clergy members - i.e. the general public. This Newsweek article suggests that abuse rates amongst the clergy is comparable to abuse rates outside the clergy.

So while it's hardly an enviable statistic to say that "we are as bad as everyone else", especially for an organisation that claims itself as setting a moral exemplar in a wicked world, it would probably come as a surprise to quite a few people who think that every second priest is child molester.

Such evidence would seem to cast doubt on Solair's claims that celibacy is linked to the formation of sexual attraction to children. Indeed, I would think it far more likely that a priest who no longer wants to remain celibate would simply sleep with a willing adult (a friend, housekeeper, man/ woman them met in a bar, prostitute or whoever) rather than develop a very complex and disturbing sexual desire to abuse children.

I don't have a particular agenda in this debate. I'm not RC. I see no Biblical basis for members of the clergy (assuming we can even talk about such positions existing in the NT) remaining celibate. And at one stage I would have thought that there was possibly some weight to the claim that Solair is making.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This Newsweek article suggests that abuse rates amongst the clergy is comparable to abuse rates outside the clergy.

Actually if you read down through the newsweek article it suggests differently. Remember in Ireland in response to the furore aroused by the media reports of abuse, our government commissioned a study which took nine years to complete. On May 20, 2009, the commission released its 2600-page report, which drew on testimony from thousands of former inmates and officials from more than 250 church-run institutions. The commission found that Catholic priests and nuns had terrorised thousands of boys and girls for decades and that government inspectors had failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation. The report characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

Cardinal Sean Brady , no less , admitted " The abuses were the result of "a culture that was prevalent in the Catholic Church in Ireland for far too long".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
it says in each case the victim was told to keep quiet, and the priest involved was usually admired by the victim's family; this made it difficult for victims to speak out, adding long-term psychological injury to the abuse itself.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

Actually if you read down through the newsweek article it suggests differently. Remember in Ireland in response to the furore aroused by the media reports of abuse, our government commissioned a study which took nine years to complete. On May 20, 2009, the commission released its 2600-page report, which drew on testimony from thousands of former inmates and officials from more than 250 church-run institutions. The commission found that Catholic priests and nuns had terrorised thousands of boys and girls for decades and that government inspectors had failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation. The report characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

Cardinal Sean Brady , no less , admitted " The abuses were the result of "a culture that was prevalent in the Catholic Church in Ireland for far too long".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
it says in each case the victim was told to keep quiet, and the priest involved was usually admired by the victim's family; this made it difficult for victims to speak out, adding long-term psychological injury to the abuse itself.

We must be reading a different article.

gigino

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

We must be reading a different article.

your article says the "The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops". Thats a bit like relying for data on Jews from the Nazi party. Look instead at our governments 2009 findings ...the report characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

Quo Vadis

gigino wrote: »

your article says the "The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops". Thats a bit like relying for data on Jews from the Nazi party. Look instead at our governments 2009 findings ...the report characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, has no connection to the Catholic Church, that's one of the reasons they were chosen to conduct an independent report. It the only liberal arts college with a criminal justice and forensic focus in the United States.

John Jay College of Criminal Justice was founded in 1964 and was originally called the College of Police Science. Eventually, the school was expanded to incorporate many liberal arts disciplines and was renamed John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_College_of_Criminal_Justice

The John Jay report identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:

Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
Use of unqualified treatment centers.
Misguided willingness to forgive.
Insufficient accountability.

Is has concluded there was no single cause.

Fanny Cradock

gigino wrote: »

your article says the "The only hard data that has been made public by any denomination comes from John Jay College's study of Catholic priests, which was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops". Thats a bit like relying for data on Jews from the Nazi party.

OK, so you don't have any particular criticism of the data or the findings of the report. You rubbish it for other reasons.

gigino wrote: »

Look instead at our governments 2009 findings ...the report characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

Yes, they said endemic. The trouble is that the word "endemic" doesn't tell us anything much about the specifics, For example, the ratio of abusers within the church compared to outside the church. If the Newsweek article is to be believed then the sad truth is that sexual abuse of minors is endemic within our society.

There are two claims being made. One by Solair, the other by you. These are:

1) Celibacy in some way encourages or causes paedophilia. I've yet to see any correlation between the two. Indeed, any information I've seen states that none exists.

2) There is a higher percentage of paedophiles within the RCC than outside of it. That is what I understand to be the point of your "endemic" quotation. Again, the evidence that I've seen suggests otherwise.

Donatello

Something for the Catholiphobes to consider is that their fixation on past abuse in the RCC actually lifts societies' sights off abuse happening now in families across Ireland. It's easy to kick the Church, but most abuse happens in the home, and not 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but today.

By fixating on the Church, it is possible that other young persons may be put at risk through your neglect to work for child protection elsewhere, like the HSE, in schools, etc.... There must be an acceptance and realisation that sexual abuse and exploitation is a universal problem across the world. Only in this way can an effective means of addressing it be realised.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

By fixating on the Church, it is possible that other young persons may be put at risk through your neglect to work for child protection elsewhere, like the HSE, in schools, etc.... There must be an acceptance and realisation that sexual abuse and exploitation is a universal problem across the world. Only in this way can an effective means of addressing it be realised.

What the government could do if it learns that a parent is abusing a child, to avoid causing a scandal, is move the parent to another family. But the new family shouldn't be warned that the parent abused children in the previous family. If the parent abuses again, just move them away from the children to another family and so on. They should not - under any circumstances - inform the police or warn anyone about these paedophile parents.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's more or less what the CC did.

Donatello

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What the government could do if it learns that a parent is abusing a child, to avoid causing a scandal, is move the parent to another family. But the new family shouldn't be warned that the parent abused children in the previous family. If the parent abuses again, just move them away from the children to another family and so on. They should not - under any circumstances - inform the police or warn anyone about these paedophile parents.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's more or less what the CC did.

That was in the past, and it was done with the active cooperation of the police and society at large.

There has to come a point where forgiveness comes in. Otherwise, people are caught in a perpetual blame game which can never lead to peace.

The Church in Ireland now has the most stringent child protection measures in place. The HSE, on the other hand, to this day has a very poor child protection record. Like I said, you're looking at the wrong ball and children may be put at risk due to this neglect.

Monty Burnz

Donatello wrote: »

Like I said, you're looking at the wrong ball and children may be put at risk due to this neglect.

I'm not looking at the wrong ball - I am aware of child protection issues. But it does look a bit like you are trying to get everyone to look away from the dirty ball that the CC has been kicking around for years with no apparent goal in view beyond protecting itself from further scandal, to the point where even a good man like Diarmuid Martin is tearing his hair out in frustration.

ISAW

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm not looking at the wrong ball

You are! You are placing emphasis on one section a culture in the past which involved the church and the state and families. In spite of a tiny minority of the offenders ( of the order of one per cent) the Church has made changes to prevent similar in the future and treated victims but you focus on them who have made changes and not on the other 99 per cent of offenders (those who were not clergy).

- I am aware of child protection issues.

Great! What do you think society should be doing about these issues?

But it does look a bit like you are trying to get everyone to look away from the dirty ball that the CC has been kicking around for years with no apparent goal in view beyond protecting itself from further scandal,

that's a series of unsupported sweeping statements.

You have been shown the stats showing

1. The scale of the problem in the past - 99 per cent non clergy /one per cent clergy
2. The Church response - independent reports /compensation amounts/prison/child protection policies.

What do your "awareness" of the issue suggest to you should be done about the other 99 per cent non clergy to prevent them from abusing in future?

to the point where even a good man like Diarmuid Martin is tearing his hair out in frustration.

Frustration against what or whom? Examples?

MrPudding

Quo Vadis wrote:

Failure by the hierarchy [of the church] to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
Overemphasis [by the church] on the need to avoid a scandal.
Use of unqualified treatment centers [by the church].
Misguided willingness [of the church] to forgive.
Insufficient accountability [of, or within, the church].

Is has concluded there was no single cause.

Five failures. One common denominator.

Donatello wrote: »

Something for the Catholiphobes to consider is that their fixation on past abuse in the RCC actually lifts societies' sights off abuse happening now in families across Ireland. It's easy to kick the Church, but most abuse happens in the home, and not 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, but today.

There are good reasons for the fixation. The lack of admission of responsibility is one. The constant clamour to find anyone or anything to blame for the abuse, other than the church, culprits blamed so far; the gheys, the devil and the laity.

And with respect to abuse being perpetrated by the church today, I understand that there are issues in third world countries. I did not see the Prime Time programme, but there is a thread about it on the A & A forum.

Donatello wrote: »

By fixating on the Church, it is possible that other young persons may be put at risk through your neglect to work for child protection elsewhere, like the HSE, in schools, etc....

By fixating on the church society is trying to get it to understand it is to blame for the abuse, it is to blame for the, arguably worse, cover up and it won’t be allowed to happen again.

Donatello wrote: »

There must be an acceptance and realisation that sexual abuse and exploitation is a universal problem across the world. Only in this way can an effective means of addressing it be realised.

I don’t think anyone doubts that abuse happens out side the church, but, as has been pointed out to you and other apologists for the church, that is not relevant for discussions about the abuse that was caused by the churches employees and the subsequent cover up.

Donatello wrote: »

That was in the past, and it was done with the active cooperation of the police and society at large.

Ah yes, I was wondering when you would start with your normal “whataboutery.” Personally, I think it is unforgivable that the church was allowed to behave the way it did, but at the same time I can see how it came about. The church spent 2000 years getting itself into a position of power where it was considered to be the moral authority. Is it any surprise when the police and society at large complied with them?

Donatello wrote: »

There has to come a point where forgiveness comes in. Otherwise, people are caught in a perpetual blame game which can never lead to peace.

There can be no forgiveness until there is an admission of wrong doing. Your church is still trying to someone else to blame. How can it be forgiven when it is still trying to find someone else to blame?

Donatello wrote: »

The Church in Ireland now has the most stringent child protection measures in place. The HSE, on the other hand, to this day has a very poor child protection record. Like I said, you're looking at the wrong ball and children may be put at risk due to this neglect.

Is this your church that tried to hide over 200 allegations of about from it own independent group tasked with investigating?

MrP

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

That was in the past, and it was done with the active cooperation of the police and society at large.

There has to come a point where forgiveness comes in. Otherwise, people are caught in a perpetual blame game which can never lead to peace.

This would be more convincing if your posts in the past displayed even the slightest hint of grace, forgiveness or tolerance towards those who do not share your own opinions.

gigino

Solair wrote: »

Well, I think one thing the Catholic Church fails to address is the fact that it has a policy of sexually oppressing its employees and that this might have an impact on their behaviour?

Being completely celibate is a totally unnatural set of circumstances for any living creature. So, forcing a group of people to deny themselves any sexual outlet is obviously going to create problems.

+1. Its hardly surprising many many priests have skeletons in the closet.
Even look at the two priests who were on stage with the Pope when he visited Galway in 1979, Fr. Michael Cleary and Fr. Eamonn Casey. It became public knowledge years later that both had fathered children.
In third world countries its common knowlege / catholic priests opely admit to their affairs with housekeepers + others. Here its still hushed up by some. Because the culture in the Roman Catholic church was / is to keep quiet for the state of the church, the victim told to keep quiet, the priest involved was usually admired by the victim's family etc. People die, people get old and are told to forget, people move away and turn over a new chapter in their lives. It was made very difficult for victims to speak out, adding long-term psychological injury to the abuse itself.

prinz

Solair wrote: »

Well, I think one thing the Catholic Church fails to address is the fact that it has a policy of sexually oppressing its employees and that this might have an impact on their behaviour?
Being completely celibate is a totally unnatural set of circumstances for any living creature. So, forcing a group of people to deny themselves any sexual outlet is obviously going to create problems.
I just feel as an organisation that it is dangerously dysfunctional.
I am passing no comment on its theology or on christianity in general, just on the way this organisation has morphed into a bit of a monster.

If celibacy was a driving factor in the abuse, why is it that the rates of abuse by Catholic priests (i.e. celibate) has been found not to be significantly higher than abuse by members/clerics of other religious denominations which do not require celibacy, or indeed any higher than the general public?

gigino

Quo Vadis wrote: »

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, has no connection to the Catholic Church,

according to Newsweek magazine the report " was authorized and is being paid for by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops".
Its a bit like looking at a report on the welfare of Jews in 1930's Germany which was "authorized and paid " for by the Nazi party.
If there was an investigation and report paid by the RCC in 1980 to find if if the two main priests on the stage with the Pope in Galway in '79 had fathered children while being priests, I guess the report in 1980 would have said no.

gigino

prinz wrote: »

If celibacy was a driving factor in the abuse, why is it that the rates of abuse by Catholic priests (i.e. celibate) has been found not to be significantly higher than abuse by members/clerics of other religious denominations which do not require celibacy, or indeed any higher than the general public?

Do you have a link for that ? Given that so many people had dreadful experiences at the hands of the Catholic church in the 50's 60's etc, its an awful slur on Irish society to say the rest was as bad as the RCC.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

Do you have a link for that ? Given that so many people had dreadful experiences at the hands of the Catholic church in the 50's 60's etc, its an awful slur on Irish society to say the rest was as bad as the RCC.

I could point to the SAVI report which includes breakdowns such as..

A relatively small percentage of perpetrators fitted the current stereotype of abusers of children: strangers were in the minority - over 80% of children were abused by those known to them. Fathers constituted 2.5% of all abusers, with uncles (6.2%), cousins (4.4%), babystitters (4.4%), and brothers (3.7%) among the most common other perpetrators. Clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers constituted 3.2% of abusers, and non-religious/clerical teachers (1.2%).

http://www.drcc.ie/about/SAVI_Report.pdf

Combining religious ministers and religious teachers they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious.A smaller proportion (1.4 per cent) of girls abused were abused by clergy or religious.... All of these authority groups were more notable by how uncommon, rather than common, they were as perpetrators of sexual abuse against children.

http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf

So who abused the 94.2% of boys not sexually abused by clergy or religious and the 98.6% of girls not sexually abused by clergy or religious?

Childhood sexual abuse..

The perpetrator was another child or adolescent (17 years old or younger) in one out of every four cases.

One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In over a quarter of cases of contact abuse (i.e. 5.6 per cent of all girls), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either vaginal, anal or oral sex.
One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in four-teen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse. In one of every six cases of contact abuse (i.e. 2.7 per cent of all boys), the abuse involved penetrative sex — either anal or oral sex.

So clergy are responsible for the childhood sexual abuse of one in five females or in six males in this country? I don't think so.

gigino

prinz wrote: »

5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious

If we accept the above ( and disregard the huge number of people who are not included in the statistics because of the RCC cover up, being told to keep quiet, respect for the church etc) , then considering the proportion of the percatage of the Irish population who are priests
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/cco_publications/researchanddevelopment/diocesan%20priests.pdf

00.06% of the population are priests and yet they commited 5.8% of the abuse ?

No wonder our government in 2009 published the report which characterised rape and molestation as "endemic" in Irish Catholic church-run industrial schools and orphanages.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

00.06% of the population are priests and yet they commited 5.8% of the abuse ?

Do you understand the difference between committing 5.8% of the abuse, and being responsible for 5.8% of the victims? Religious/clerics were found responsible for 3.2% of the abuse. Babysitters were found responsible for 4.4% of childhood sexual abuse... endemic in babysitting circles.

gigino

prinz wrote: »

Do you understand the difference between committing 5.8% of the abuse, and being responsible for 5.8% of the victims?

From your own quote / links you admit "5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious"

You are trying now to confuse matters by asking the difference between committing 5.8% of the abuse, and being responsible for 5.8% of the victims !

Do you not think it is staggering that 5.8 % of the sexual abuse was carried out by clergy/religous, given that the total clergy practicing in Ireland is only 00.06% of the total population ?

The above is just sexual abuse, in that survey. In various industrial schools etc we know there was also other forms of abuse. Another point to consider is how most abuse by clergy / religous went unreported. From your link it says " Patterns were similar regarding experiences of child sexual abuse. Ten men (of 178) and 28 women (of 290) reported their experiences to the Gardaí (i.e. 8 per cent overall of those abused). Disclosure to medical professionals was 6 per cent for adult abuse and 4 per cent for

child abuse while disclosure to counsellors/therapists was 12 per
cent with 14 per cent of women and 8 per cent of men disclosing

to counsellors/therapists." I know the culture in the Roman Catholic church was / is to keep quiet for the state of the church, the victim told to keep quiet, the priest tranferred and not another word said etc, but it was still very wrong. Like the two main priests who were on stage with the Pope when he visited Galway in 1979, ( Fr. Michael Cleary and Fr. Eamonn Casey...it became public knowledge years later that both had fathered children ) a lot went on which was never reported. Those who did report anything faced great hostility from the RCC at the time, and were told by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-educated Catholic Church at the time, in no uncertain terms, to keep it quiet etc.

Its shocking how even in this day and age someone could defend the track record of the RCC, when 00.06% of the population are priests and yet they commited 5.8% of the abuse against boys.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

From your own quote / links you admit "5.8 per cent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious"

One more time..

Clerical/religious ministers or clerical/religious teachers constituted 3.2% of abusers

Now are you going to tackle the issue of the other 96.8% of abusers? That was your original point was it not?

gigino wrote: »

.....its an awful slur on Irish society to say the rest was as bad as the RCC

gigino wrote: »

You are trying now to confuse matters by asking the difference between committing 5.8% of the abuse, and being responsible for 5.8% of the victims !

I am asking a very straightforward question, who do you think abused the other 94.2% of boys who were sexually abused by non-religious and the other 98.6% of girls who were abused by non religious?

prinz

Of course going back to the theory that celibacy was a factor in the abuse..

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

gigino

prinz wrote: »

Of course going back to the theory that celibacy was a factor in the abuse..

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html

and the fith sentence of that revealed "a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children. Many people, if they were not abused themselves by catholic religous, would have relatives or friends, or would know of someone, who was.

gigino

prinz wrote: »

I am asking a very straightforward question, who do you think abused the other 94.2% of boys who were sexually abused by non-religious

Everyone from uncles to babysitters to strangers etc. If you had an uncle who was a priest who was babysitting then ....
At least relatives and babysitters had not the power to cover up / swear to secrecy that the Catholic church had.

Is it not awful that 00.06% of the population are priests and yet they commited 5.8% of the abuse suffered by boys? And that the RCC is still trying to downplay the abuse / find someone else to blame ?