 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 22 Apr 10 - 05:03 AM Meanwhile another bishop is about to step down. 500, by the way |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 22 Apr 10 - 04:02 AM "I am not about to suspend reality....." This is your 'reality. "Jim cited the case of a father who raped his son and daughter, but I am sure this creature must have been severely psychologically disturbed, or affected by drug or alchohol dependancy." Where is the 'reality' of your statement here; what evidence has come out of the ongoing trial that your surmisings have any basis in reality and are not part of your ongoing and very sick obsession with legally accepted homosexuality? Can you cite any evidence whatever that has emerged so far to back up your statement? Have you been following the case; do you know anything about it whatever? The crimes committed against the two children, son and daughter, were classic cases of paedophila, as were those against the victims of the church. Paedophilia is, by definition, "Sexual attraction by adults, usually men, of children of either sex. This is EXACTLY what has happened in the case being tried at the present time and it is EXACTLY what happened in ALL the cases of clerical abuse, yet, despite all the evidence to the contrary, you make the totally unsubstantiated and outrageous claim that "the instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare". Where is your 'reality' there, where is the evidence for this? The crimes committed by the clergy have nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. In the highly unlikely circumstance of them coming to trial, they will be tried for paedophilic rape and/or assault. Paedophilia is a fully established and recognised condition in it's own right, and, despite your ourageous claim to the contrary, there is a long list of outstanding cases awaiting examination of female children who have been, or have claim to have been raped by clergymen. Reality my arse! As far as I am concerned, your constant attempts to sideline the discussion to further your own particular kink is tantamount to re-abusing all the abuse victims. I wonder what the feller who you described thus; "if Jesus was alive today I'd be his friend" (unmarried, no children, just one possible girlfriend) would have had to say about that - I believe he had strong opinions on the abuse of children. Joe; Is not depicting members of this thread going about their legal NORMAL business, as disease spreading perverts, making personal attacks on Mudcat members - in this case, people who are not even involved in this particular discussion. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:59 AM Sorry, Ake, but your data does not compute. There are very large number of both heterosexuals and homosexuals, in and out of the priesthood, who never molest a child. I think that means there is no need for a blanket prohibition against homosexuals, if most homosexuals are very unlikely to molest children. That being the case, you have to find other things that would indicate a likelihood to molest children, and base your screening on that criteria. HOWEVER, for as long as the Catholic church requires celibacy for priests, then I think it is foolhardy to admit men into the seminary if they are currently sexually active - whether those men are heterosexual or homosexual. And as long as the celibacy rule is in effect, I don't think it's a good thing for priests to ignore the rule and engage in sexual activity. Certainly, some priests are going to slip now and then, but I can't approve of that or say that it's OK as long as they're discreet. I don't think priests should be required to be celibate; but as long as celibacy is the rule, the rule should be followed - by both heterosexual and homosexual priests. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 03:13 AM Yes Joe, I take your point, but Herek has dedicated himself to a lifeswork in the defence of "homosexual rights" seemingly to the exclusion of every other facet of human behaviour. This would seem to make him more of an "obsessive" than Jim imagines me to be. I would maintain that to be involved in the defence of these "rights" issues to the extent that Herek is,(basically a powerful activist), makes complete impartiality impossible. I particularly dislike Herek's habit of, when he encounters a problem to his hypothesis, he simply calls it something else; for example the sexual abuse of teenage boys and youths that we see in the clerical cases, should be rebranded as "male on male molestation" giving the mistaken impression(in my view) that heteros and homos sexually assault young males in equal proportion. It is surely obvious that the large percentage numbers of homos in the priesthood, has a relation to the large number of boys and youths being assaulted? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:58 AM Jim Carroll and Steamin' Willie, you bring up an interesting challenge. I criticized you when you insinuated questions about Akenaton, and you both countered that if you were not allowed to defame Akenaton, then he should not be allowed to present his allegations that there is a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. I think there's a big difference - your remarks were a direct, personal attack on Akenaton. His remarks do border on prejudice against homosexuals, but they are clearly what he believes quite passionately to be the truth. Rather than demanding that he be silenced, you have the freedom to gather and present evidence to refute his allegations. After all, what is the purpose of a discussion? - simply to defeat and silence your opponent? The two of you have said many things that I believe are a distorted view of Catholicism - would it be right for me to seek to silence you? I think the only way to effectively discuss a controversial issue, is to allow all sides to say what they think, respectfully and without personal attacks. Your insinuations don't add any proof to your position - they're just nasty insinuations. That being said, I have to say that I still disagree with you completely, Ake. You say that Dr. Herek's report is biased, but you do not specify exactly what it is that is inaccurate in Herek's report. Indeed, he appears to be very careful not to jump to conclusions on anything. He does agree with the distinctions you have made between those who molest pubescent and pre-pubescent children; and between those who molest male and female children. He does make one distinction that you fail to acknowledge: that molesters molest children, and normal heterosexuals and homosexuals have sex only with adults. Therefore, a normal homosexual who had not had sex with children, would seem to be as unlikely to have sex with children as a normal heteroxexual would be. In short, most people (whether heterosexual or homosexual) don't have sex with children. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:45 AM I am not about to suspend reality to fit in with your view of how society should operate Jim. The bias in Herek's writing runs through all of his wurk....that I have read. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 22 Apr 10 - 01:37 AM Jim....When i say that I believe there is selection by gender in most cases of abuse against children; and in the clerical case, of abuse against mainly teenagers and young adults, I am not being discriminatory. I believe this selection is made by both heterosexually and homosexually orientated abusers. People who molest babies and very young children (paedophiles) appear to be in a different catagory.....something beyond sanity. Is is important to make this distinction if we are to fully understand the clerical abuse problem. To maintain that it is a problem of "Catholicism" per se, is simply wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 08:26 PM Interesting stuff from Dr David Finkelhor, From the Crimes Against Children Center, UNH http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV68.pdf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:57 PM Does the John Jay report stand up to the rigis Ake test...a professional peer review test, is it unbiased, considering who funded it and supplied much of the information? Does it justify Akes conclusions as to homosexuality of abusers? You be the judge...From the NY Times "The report* contains a wealth of data about the nature of the abuse, its prevalence and the profiles of abusers. In hindsight, Professor Terry said, she wishes that the team had explored more deeply the sexual orientation of the abusive priests, whose victims were overwhelmingly male. Most sexual abuse victims in the general population are female. Other researchers have praised the John Jay study, but cite shortcomings. Because all of the data was provided by the nation's dioceses and based on existing files, for example, the John Jay team had no way to standardize definitions or know how the dioceses had chosen which information to include. ''This is the equivalent of a couple of good, interesting articles in a scientific journal,'' said David Finkelhor, a professor at the University of New Hampshire and another expert in the field. Professor Terry said she and her colleagues planned to publish peer-reviewed academic articles. ''This is the only database of a population of sex offenders anywhere in existence,'' although plenty of other studies look at samples, she said. ''There's a lot you can do with that.'' *(The Report) The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/05/nyregion/public-lives-a-dispassionate-look-at-the-wolf-in-priest-s-clothing.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:56 PM Some random thoughts. I really am having a little trouble with this one. To date Akenaton has used four threads on clerical child abuse as an opportunity for getting across his homophobic message. He has, on open forum, presented gays, on this thread and others, as disease-spreading perverts who have no control over their actions. This, I have to assume, includes the members of this forum who have stated that they are gay and have shown far more tolerance of his rantings than I would have been able to in their position. I can't speak for the US, but homosexuality has been partially legal in Britain since 1967, and was completely decriminalised in 1980, yet despite this he continues his (at least thirty year old) hate campaign on open forum, and once again uses the suffering of abused children as a platform. If, as has been suggested, he is trolling to wind us up, he has a disturbingly sick sense of humour, but if he is serious, he has real problems and should go and see someone to get mended. If this had been about race, and it bears all the hallmarks of the type of racism I have witnessed most of my life, I have no doubt he would have, at the very least, have been warned of his behaviour, yet so far, Steamin' Willie and I have had our wrists slapped and instructed that we have to be nice to him. Unlike some people, I'm not in the habit of running and wingeing to the site administrator, but I do believe that there comes a point when it is no longer acceptable for fanatics to use raped and abused children as a means of getting across a message that should, like the racism it so closely resembles, be nipped in the bud sharpish. As I say, I'm having a little trouble with this one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:50 PM What is normal for men with young teen at least girls is probably biologicaly normal but not socially or culturally OK I would hope. We also allow girls to flaunt themselves and they do not discriminate often as to whom...so is a "normal" man going to be attracted to a brazenly dressed and acting 14 year old who could make herself up to look 40? Yes, unfortunately. I think biology wants every single 15 year old to be pregnant..society does not. This is another whole can of worms. Bottom line is we have to have strong boundaries and be willing to impose them on both the men (or women) and the young people who don't realize the strong forces they are playing with in their attempts to be fashionable, popular etc. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 07:33 PM I found this 1964 Quaker perspective interesting...though on the drifting side of the discussion:http://www.worldpolicy.newschool.edu/globalrights/sexorient/1964-quaker.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:50 PM Ake, I'm wondering if you have read Dr. Herek's article thoroughly. Dr. Herek would agree that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:15 PM Mary ....I have cited three cases, two very high profile, and one from personal experience, which suggest that there is selection by gender in the abuse of children and youths, despite Dr Herics claim that victims are not selected according to the abusers orientation. He makes no logical argument in support of his claim. Jim cited the case of a father who raped his son and daughter, but I am sure this creature must have been severely psychologically disturbed, or affected by drug or alchohol dependancy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:00 PM I post MY opinions, backed by the results of specific, objective studies, the largest of these being the John Jay study into clerical abuse in Boston. Dr Herek presents his opinions, assumptions and huge leaps of faith, as fact. Whether I have an axe to grind or not, is of no importance to anyone. Dr Heric's axe is capable of cutting through the fibres of society and bringing it crashing down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:18 PM Ake: Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind? Unlike YOU? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 01:14 PM akenaton posted "Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind"? Reply So, is that the scale one would put forward to weigh professional (and non professional) research and opinion (even here)? If so, I suspect if you as closely checked out the personal opinions or activities of those whose research many here rely on...we would be stripped back to our own personal views....with no research to back up any logical discussion. There are statistics, research and professional opinion put forward as evidence... and even financed by... those who have a specific religious, family and anti-homosexual (or anti RC or religeous) perspectives or experience. Are we to rule their work out because of that? There are professions who have been quoted who have been censured by their profession for biased and poor research,some physciologists whose work is promoted here. BTW Dr. Gregory M. Herek is not one of these...but whose research is recognized by his professional community...regardless of his passions are outside his professional career) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM A very importantn question is whether pedophiles are attracted generically to children, which people are stating, or if this is broken down in to boy preference, girl preference or either/all. Without scientific studies, and I have been searching and haven't found the defnitive one yet, we must assume that there will be specific preferences for boys or girls. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:35 PM That should make pretty clear any further discussion of homosexuality with A. is useless. Let's move on with the subject at hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:30 PM Ah yes......but does he have an axe to grind? Take a look at his CV....objective? certainly not. he also makes huge assumptions and presents them as fact. The only reason his work is allowed to stand, is that the rest of academia is shit scared of the fascist thought police. They are all highly visible in the media, entertainment, "liberal" academia.....and Mudcat!! :0) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 21 Apr 10 - 12:16 PM Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis (UCD). He received his Ph.D. in social psychology from UCD in 1983, then was a postdoctoral fellow at Yale University. He subsequently served as a faculty member at Yale and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York before returning to UCD, first as a research psychologist and later as a tenured professor. An internationally recognized authority on prejudice against lesbians and gay men, hate crimes and anti-gay violence, and AIDS-related stigma, he has published numerous scholarly articles on these topics Biographical Sketch http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/bio.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Lox Date: 21 Apr 10 - 06:30 AM Is Ake still banging on about this? Bloody hell! You have an unhealthy obsession mate! Why don't you go and see a counsellor ... as least they'll feign interest and understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:50 AM Rather than others putting words in your mouth Akenaton, why don't you stop putting words in your own mouth? People are trying to have a reasoned debate here about clerical abuse of children, or paedophilia as it is clinically known. If you or anybody else wants to start a thread saying how Gay people are the root of all society's problems, then do so. I believe sites exist for you to do this. Some religious sites, Br*tish N*tional P*rty sites etc. A paedophile is not more a Gay person as a straight person. He or she is a paedophile. To make a sexual orientation distinction is an outrageous slur on many people. A rapist does not make heterosexual love a problem. Marital violence does not make marriage a bad thing. Clerical abuse does not make the church a bad thing. I have views on religion and especially organised religion that are not exactly complimentary, but I would never ever make clerical abuse in itself an excuse to wipe out religious organisations. I sincerely hope it will help people to question the infallibility of the church, but as an example not a root cause..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 05:36 AM " No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened." Then what is the point of putting it in this discussion - sorry - just another part of your mission agaist gays. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 21 Apr 10 - 04:14 AM A father who rapes his own son and daughter is obviously mad. "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused." Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't." No I'm not!.....I'm simply stating the facts as they happened. But these facts do suggest that child abusers differentiate on grounds of sexual orientation. This applies to hetero as well as homo abusers As Mary has said, please stop putting words in my mouth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 21 Apr 10 - 03:50 AM "written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist." Once again you attempt to debunk somebody's work by describing them as an 'activist', as you did with the Dublin psychiatrist. You have persistantly taken an anti-homosexual line, sometimes a virulent one, so are we not within our rights to describe you as a homophobic activist, and filter everything you have to say through this description? "All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused." Once again, you are implying that paedophilia is the same as homosexuality - it isn't. As I pointed out earlier, there is a case here in Ireland of a father who raped his daughter and his son - no indication of homosexuality there. "The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare." WHAT? The rape of children is paedophilia - not homosexual assault, even the most desperate of the abuse apologists accept this. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM just read Eds Link, written by Dr Gregory Herek a homosexual rights activist. His Bio does not mention his sexual orientation, but it might be interesting to find out. His CV is a catalogue of high profile defences of Homosexual rights issues. His article is hardly objective or accurate relying on studies by Kinsey, who could not even get the percentage of homosexuals in the community anywhere near correct. The points discussed are mainly personal opinion without any objective backing.....he contends that there is no way of telling whether a man who molests boys is homosexual or not.He also maintains that there should be no such crime as homosexual assault or paedophilia, rather, it should be termed "male on male molestation".....all this purely personal opinion and speculation. As I posted earlier, the big UK paedophile ring, which was led by one of the highest ranking Gay Activists in the country was exclusively homosexual and the victims exclusively male children. The vast majority of the abuse by priests in Boston, according to the John Jay report was against teenage boys and youths. When I was a child, a homosexual and a woman, in a "sham marriage" fostered twelve children.....ten boys and two girls. All of the boys, and two of my friends were sexually assaulted by the man, but neither of the girls were abused. When the man was caught, he admitted the abuse, his sexual status and the status of his "marriage".....He was not charged (because of the scandal), but allowed to leave the district and no doubt continued his abuse elsewhere. Thank you Mary, I have never said all homosexuals were paedophiles...that would make me as stupid as those who make that charge. As I have said already, in this instance we are not in the main dealing with real paedophilia, but simple homosexual assault. The instances of paedophilia by clergy are quite rare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:27 PM Few would say that RC's in France (a country of 62 million people of whom about two-thirds identify themselves as Catholics) were or are scared of sex, or even the opposite sex :) But, they do seem to have difficulty with recruiting priests these days: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/20/world/international-uk-french-catholics.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:05 PM "Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex." In Catholic countries like Ireland the Church made sex a necessary evil; outside marriage it was forbidden totally, inside marriage it was for the procreation of children. The crossroads dances, open-air dances that were one of the major forms of recreation in rural areas, were systematically broken up by clergymen who would go in smashing instruments and beating the participants - the reason given was that it was encouraging sin for young people of the opposite sex to meet unsupervised. Anyone persitantly caught at a dance would be humiliated by having their names read out at mass on Sunday mornings. One elderly lady we know had her eardrum burst by a priest for attending one. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:52 PM Oh mg, now you're being silly. When he keeps saying that on a thread about paedophile priests, what do you imagine he means? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:28 PM It does not say that all. It sounds to me like it might be referring more to promiscuity but I see no link to pedophilia there at all. I do not find it at all hard to believe that pedophiles are not acting out of adult behavior..I just never saw him link all homosexuals to pedophelia and I of course do not at all. This is serious business here and we don't need to misquote people, even people I personally I don't agree with. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:16 PM @MG. If you haven't heard Ache say that homsexuality=paedophilia then you haven't been paying attention. He keeps repeating minor variations on the theme of (several times in this thread alone) "homosexuals do not have the constraints to their sexual behaviour that generally come with producing and rearing a family ....I say again they have thrown away the rule book." Which is a blanket assertion that all homosexuals (not some, or a few, or one) are unconstrained sexual criminals (in this context). In other discussions he says that "they all" can't or don't want to form relationships and are leading sad, empty lives. To mention but a few of his inane mumblings. You may find it hard to believe that paedophiles - when they act as such - are not acting out any form of adult (homo or hetero) sexual behaviour. That does not make the assertion inaccurate. Ed.T's link to that piece at University of California seems to explain that very distinction. You might do well to read it - carefully. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM Here is an NPR piece on Marciel. Creepy man. Now, Cardinal Ratzinger did act on him and pope JP II did not, despite what seems to be adequate information. Keep watching for this Cardinal Sodono. He seems to be a rat. mg http://www.wbur.org/npr/126116570 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:30 PM To avoid the present dilema in the discussion, here is a good article that puts the issues and terms into perspective and correct research language....so we can talk a similar language and avoid spinning our wheels: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:03 PM Some points.. I have never read Ake say that all homosexuals are pedophiles. Not remotely. Don't go putting words into people's mouths. This issue is complicated enough as it is. Second..I find it very hard to believe that a pedophile would not have a preference of either boys or girls. Do you truthfully think that if God forbid they were given a choice that some wouldn't lean towards one and others toward another? Third: I think we have to look not only what people are attracted to but what they are repulsed by..and that often can be women..due to awful mothers, or excessive religion or very strict training or early trauma or whatever. Take that into account. Some Catholics are terrified, absolutely terrified of the opposite sex. Some men are especially terrified of contact with women. And respulsed by the very tought of contact. Fourth: We know there are pedophiles out there in probably great number, thankfully not all active. But why oh why do we allow ten year old or twelve year old or five year old girls even dress in provocative ways? We are collectively nuts. And responsible for part of the problem..and especially we must all be vigilant with the problem of the mother's boyfriend...that is a whole other topic and a terrible can of worms and 10people will write in the next 10 minutes and say either my pit bull never bites or my boyfriend would never do that. Unfortunately, both things happen. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:03 PM I was just reminded of something that a very dear friend explained to me - she is no longer with us, but spend half a lifetime as a family social worker. Adults abusing kids, aren't fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a partner - of the opposite sex for a heterosexual or the same sex for a homosexual abuser - but are fulfilling a distorted need for sex with a child. The power/emotional/psychological dynamic of that situation. Paedophiles are sexually fixated on children. They aren't defined necessarily as homo or heterosexual because they are disfunctional in adult sexual/emotional relationships. Age is almost their only consideration toward their victims. Gender is secondary. A paedophile will tend to act out his or her needs on any child it can get access to. A reason that paedophile priests might have had a disproportionate number of male victims is that they might have greater access to boys than they do girls, because the genders are pretty well separated in Catholic organisations. It seems a fairly obvious and simply understood proposition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:58 PM has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear. That has all been repeatedly pointed out by several people, complete with reliable research based sources. Ake chooses to ignore that kind of argument or dismisses it out of hand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Stringsinger Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:56 PM The only solution is to arrest the perps. (Or pervs.) Go up the chain of command to the top. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Royston Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:49 PM Jim, Willie, As one of the people that might take offence from Ache, I appreciate your arguing this one out. But Ake is a troll best left unfed, I think. I have this picture of him relaxing of an evening with a nice dram of scotch (single malt, probably an Islay) chuckling away at all the reaction he provokes. I haven't read the whole of this thread - has anyone pointed out that most child abuse is of girls, by straight men - normally the father or a close male relative? What proportion of boys/girls are involved as victims of priests? It certainly won't be an all-male experience, I fear. It's the same old tired narrative of the bonkers bigots. There are some people with whom discussion is utterly pointless. At one Gay/Lesbian pride march in London in the '90s there were people wearing T-Shirts with the slogan - "Give us your kids: what we can't fuck, we eat!" Absurdly bad taste, but an excellent riposte to the equally absurd narrative that gay=paedophile. People who believe that are beyond intelligent discussion, so screw 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:02 PM "Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists" No I don't , and it really doesn't help your case to distort what I do say in this way. I said that if your point is, as it has appeared to have been over at least three threads, that all homosexuals are potential paedophiles, then the logical conclusion must be that all hetrosexual men are potential rapists. I believe both claims to be nonsense, but that is how your argument comes across to me, and obviously to others, and has done on all the threads I have been involved in with you on this subject. Your dislike of homosexuality is obvious and it has turned several threads on clerical abuse into attacks on homosexuals, which has to be wrong. The evidence on the clerical abuse we are discussing, the study by the Irish psychiatrists, the figures on homosexuality, even the definition of the term paedophile, all point to paedophila being an abuse of children regardless of their gender. We are in the middle of an abuse trial here in Ireland where a father raped his children - his son and his daughter - that is paedophilia, nothing to do with homosexuality. The above article (which you apparently dismiss on the basis of one of the twelve psychiatrists having declared himself gay) points to there being no evidence of your claims; even the church, on whose behalf the claims were made a week ago, have disassociated themselves from it.It is obvious that the abuses in the church were acts of paedophilia, and were carried out irrespective of the gender of the victims. If there is any imbalance between male and female victims in the church, I have no doubt that this is down to the access that the perpetrators had to their victims - industrial schools like Letterfrack full of young boys under the care of priests - paedophilia is an opportunist crime. It is significant that the figures to date do not include the young women abused in the Magdalene Laundries; nor to we have the information on what happened outside the time limit or in the diocese not covered by the two reports. The only thing we know is that there has been a great deal of abuse committed over a long period of time by priest, agaist children in their care. I believe it is totally irresponsible to draw definitive conclusions on this. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 20 Apr 10 - 04:28 AM Ok, Joe, I hear what you say. However, if there is any other way of dealing with drip drip poison diatribe that insults the very existence of a large section of society please advise. Sadly, the topic is one that is impossible to comment on without upsetting some people. Akenaton has demonstrated his / her? bigotry in such a way as to make reasoned debate impossible. it is wrong to just stop posting as refusing to stand up to such people is how the world has got into messes in the first place. Blaming a section of society for the criminal acts of a few, often not even part of that section, has terrible precedents and I for one cannot and will not allow their odious views to go unchallenged. Fine if that is what they think. free society, everybody has a right to a view. But everybody has a right to draw the line somewhere and say I cannot respect, let alone see the view as valid. Akenaton's stereotyping of all gays as predatory potential paedophiles who need feeling sorry for.... Well, I hope your warning of not getting personal extends to warning Akenaton that many people, gay / straight / religious / not religious / ginger / short / tall / male / female ..... can easily be disturbed by reading such filth and wonder where the moderators are...
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:58 AM Peter, where did I say that "homosexuality equates to paedophilia?" That makes no more sense than saying heterosexuality equates to rape. Men are by nature, sexual predators. Jim maintains that all male heteros are "potential rapists" and this point was mentioned on another thread, but in society we are all under pressure to conform to perceived norms and the production, and raising of a family makes the suppression of these instincts easier. Homosexuals however, have in the large part no such constraints on their behaviour as can be seen from homosexual health figures and the figures on clerical abuse. When we try to buck nature and throw away the rule book, problems always arise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 19 Apr 10 - 05:21 PM I can't see why the sexual orientation of the abusers is relevant. The only way to stop the abuse is to remove the opportunity. They couldn't be forced to, and church will never volunteer to do that, as the effectiveness of its conditioning process relies on influencing young minds, preferably from birth. (I would maintain that the overwhelming majority of Catholics never had one scrap of choice about it.) It seems to me that the only thing which has had the effect of actually reducing the abuse so far is publicity. Unfortunately the publicity will also push some of the abuse further underground. Sadly, I don't think it will ever be completely stopped. Teach your children well, is my advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:31 PM When I was working, I had a coworker who was jealous that I was in charge of the office, not he. He tried a little campaign against me - making implications that I was gay. It put me in a bad position, because I am sympathetic to gay people. That being the case, how could I claim that somebody calling me gay was offensive? One time, he said something to that effect when we were in a car with two other coworkers. I responded, OK, I've got notes of what you've said, and now I have two witnesses. Say anything like that again, and I'll file a formal complaint." He didn't make any implications like that again. But anyhow, there's no reason to be hurtful in what you say here at Mudcat. Discuss the topic, and stay away from personal attacks. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:11 PM Sorry Joe - will slow down, but I would point out that there are gays on this forum who might take offence at being lumped in with paedophiles. I'm off. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:46 PM Jim and Willie, I think you're getting a bit personal in the way you've addressed Akenaton. Please stick to the subject, and be careful not to be hurtful in what you say. Thanks. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:12 PM Akenaton So let's see what we've got. You don't like gays, you 'pity' them. You find a suggestion that you might be gay yourself 'insulting'. You deliberately and dishonestly manipulate the term homosexuality to equate with paefophilea, despite expert research and dictionary definitions. You accuse all gays of being potential paedophiles - but have no comment on the idea that, following your own logic, all hetrosexuals are potential rapists. You explain away clerical abuse as being down to homosexuality - despite research to the contrary. You reject (not dispute) any research that challenges your own bigotry. You appear to have no problem with the term 'bigot' - on the contrary, you appear to embrace it. On this basis, you reject the conclusions of a dozen field workers in the field of paedophelia on the basis that one of them is gay. That seems fair enough I suppose! You really do need help. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:31 PM "Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself! " Yeah - I assumed you'd work on the basis that only people with your agenda have a right to an opinion - pity all the other's in the survey backed him up. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:45 PM Even the 5% figure is wrong. 2-3% is now universally recognised. For years, the homosexual activists tried to foist Kinsey's figure of 10% on society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 19 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM The figures given by the John Jay study in Boston speak for themselves. We could certainly do with a lot of OBJECTIVE research into homosexuality and clerical abuse, just as we need objective research into homosexuality and high HIV rates. Your "expert" Dr Dibble(no relation to Constable Dibble I hope), in response to Cardinal Bertone's comments said..... ""There is no research to back up what he said. Five per cent of the world's population is gay and to put "US" all in that category is appalling" Your "objective expert" seems to be a homosexual himself! |