 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Catholic come all-ye
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: GUEST,mg Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:55 PM Another problem curtesy of Andrew Sullivan (and yes I read him but he also reads me because I write to him). A subordinate was pressured to cover for Ratzinger regarding a meeting he chaired where a priest was reassigned and went on to abuse. I will say this in front of God and everyone. I think that the pope is either incompetent mentally or he is basically lying to us. Or figuring he does not have to actually say the truth as long as he does not speak words of lies. Either way he needs to go. Now. There is so much filth associated with this Marciel case..bribery of church officials, at least it looks that way. Lots and lots of money exchanging hands. A pope who turned the other way..John Paul II. This is not the case of a lonely, tortured priest in a run-down orphanage. I am sympathetic to those poor souls, although I would do all I could to keep them away from children, including jail of course. This is a scam artist of the highest degree. A human worm. No, I should not insult worms. A subhuman inferior to a worm. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: GUEST,mg Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:59 PM If you can stand more, read up on Marciel and his bribery, corruption, protection by Pope John Paul II, who should no longer be considered for sainthood. Then try to get a take on Cardinal Sardono? Sadono? Something like that. He has made some of the more interesting statements and he keeps appearing in this drama. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Amos Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:33 PM "In my travels around the world, I encounter two Catholic Churches. One is the rigid all-male Vatican hierarchy that seems out of touch when it bans condoms even among married couples where one partner is H.I.V.-positive. To me at least, this church - obsessed with dogma and rules and distracted from social justice - is a modern echo of the Pharisees whom Jesus criticized. Yet there's another Catholic Church as well, one I admire intensely. This is the grass-roots Catholic Church that does far more good in the world than it ever gets credit for. This is the church that supports extraordinary aid organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Caritas, saving lives every day, and that operates superb schools that provide needy children an escalator out of poverty. This is the church of the nuns and priests in Congo, toiling in obscurity to feed and educate children. This is the church of the Brazilian priest fighting AIDS who told me that if he were pope, he would build a condom factory in the Vatican to save lives. This is the church of the Maryknoll Sisters in Central America and the Cabrini Sisters in Africa. There's a stereotype of nuns as stodgy Victorian traditionalists. I learned otherwise while hanging on for my life in a passenger seat as an American nun with a lead foot drove her jeep over ruts and through a creek in Swaziland to visit AIDS orphans. After a number of encounters like that, I've come to believe that the very coolest people in the world today may be nuns. So when you read about the scandals, remember that the Vatican is not the same as the Catholic Church. Ordinary lepers, prostitutes and slum-dwellers may never see a cardinal, but they daily encounter a truly noble Catholic Church in the form of priests, nuns and lay workers toiling to make a difference. It's high time for the Vatican to take inspiration from that sublime - even divine - side of the Catholic Church, from those church workers whose magnificence lies not in their vestments, but in their selflessness. They're enough to make the Virgin Mary smile." Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:17 PM Well, it's coming apart at the edges; in the process of crumbling. Apparently in Ireland, when some Pastoral Letter was read from the altar recently, many among the congregations left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:38 PM Actually, leaving aside the accuracy of your second statement/question, I'm not sure anything has crumbled just yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:53 PM By the way, I didn't mean to imply that "a goodly chunk" means a majority! Just an appreciable number, I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:50 PM True for you. That's part of why I wondered (visibly, at least) whether I should frame the statements as questions. Need "public opinion", however, imply the opinion(s) of a majority in a given population, as distinct from an appreciable number? Then there's the issue of access to the modern-day media. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: mousethief Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:08 PM A goodly chunk of public opinion in this country thinks Obama was born in Kenya and his Hawaiian birth certificate is a clear forgery, in spite of there being absolutely not a shred of a ghost of a scrap of evidence to support this assertion. I wouldn't be so proud of public opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh Date: 18 Apr 10 - 11:43 AM Another relic of the Roman Empire crumbles. Another triumph of literacy, the printing-press and public opinion. Perhaps these should both be rhetorical questions? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:35 AM Joe Are you saying, as an organisation, the Boy Scouts of America allowed paedophiles to operate in their ranks until their behaviour got so out of hand that something had to be done and they were moved on to other Scout troups in order that they escape justice, allowing them to continue with their paediphelic practices? Was none of this reported to the law, and were the victims and their families bullied into vows of silence? Did this behaviour include the whole organisation, from the Chief Scout to the individual scoutmaster? This is what happened in the organisation of the church, and that is what makes the stance they took so unacceptable. Apologists have tried to pass this off as a handful of 'bad apples' - it wasn't; it was an in-built culture of abuse and acceptance of abuse, excused and fostered by the church, which almost certainly lasted for generations and spread throughout the church. Until people realise this, the victims will never have closure and the church will have committed 'the perfect crime'. Throwing money at the problem went on here too - sort of, but it wasn't an attempt to stop the abuses happening, rather, it was part of the cover-up. Some - very few, were placed in therapy in order to give the impression that something was being done. One of the worst abusers here (over a hundred victims), despite the advice of his therapist that he was an uncurable paedaphile, was put back in office, where he continued to abuse, was finally moved to a post abroad and was discovered to have made his home overlooking a childrens' playground. Is this the type of money-throwing that the church indulged in, in the US? It really isn't a difficult problem - the church should be separated from childrens' education and welfare, they should have no more say in temporal affairs than we ordinary citizens have, and their role be restricted to the spiritual ministering, and only then at the full consent of the individuals who wish it. They must be become a spiritual organisation and nothing else. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:29 AM OR "misguided"? That word implies an innocence-of-motive aspect that I don't believe for one minute. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:25 AM > There's no question that the Catholic Church screwed up this thing, and screwed it up badly. But much of it was unintentional and misguided. Unintentional?? HOW can sexual abuse and cover-ups be unintentional? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:15 PM Jim Carroll says: Name one organisation that has harboured paedophiles who have systematically abused children for decades, probably generations The Boy Scouts of America It took time and some attempted coverups, but the Boy Scouts generally cleaned up their act by about 1990. Of course, they have never been the target of prejudice that the Catholic Church has been. Jim, it's a very difficult and bewildering problem. There's no question that the Catholic Church screwed up this thing, and screwed it up badly. But much of it was unintentional and misguided. The American Catholics threw a lot of money at the problem in the 1970s by building centers that were expected to treat and cure the problem of child molestation - but they didn't work. I still don't believe we have a workable solution to the problem, but at least the Catholic Church is trying. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: michaelr Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:27 PM Bill Maher says the Catholic Church should be prosecuted under the RICO act. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bonzo3legs Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:48 AM You should watch the excellent Song for a Raggy Boy, which shows bigoted raving catholics at their worst. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: John P Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:45 AM Greg, what are you talking about? It is well and widely documented that high church officials facilitated the rape of children. Many, many instances of priests being moved to other parishes where the parents of small children didn't know they were getting a pedophile foisted off on them. And all to avoid embarrassing the church. Yuck! The police are just a phone call away. Why hasn't it been church policy that law-breakers in the ranks are turned over to the law immediately? Some of these priests have been brought to justice, but not many, and almost none of the bishops and cardinals who colluded with them. I'd like to know why all affected governments haven't raided the church offices and hired a small army of lawyers to go through all the records. I'd like to know why there is even mention of allowing the church to investigate and police itself. If the church were going to do an investigation, it should have been published -- with every detail -- a couple of years ago. Where is it? I'd like to know why the church is attacking journalists who, in the absence of any credible official action, are trying to ferret out the truth for themselves. Why isn't the church working with those journalists to make the truth universally known so everyone can figure out how to deal with the mess? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:20 AM "One word, Jimmy: Bullshit. " Two words - prove it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Greg F. Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:34 AM One word, Jimmy: Bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 10 - 04:22 AM "Sorry- let me re-state: Jimmy, you're at it again - facts not in evidence" The longer this goes on, the more transparently stupid your arguments become. The Catholic Church are the leaders in the field of child abuse because they are the only runners in this particularly sordid race - there are no other contenders for the title. If there were I have little doubt that you and your fellow-apologists would be jumping up and down and pointing them out; as it is, your silence says it all. Name one organisation that has harboured paedophiles who have systematically abused children for decades, probably generations, have ignored the abuses until they have got out of hand, then have created an escape rout to allow abusers not only to evade justice, but to continue their abuses elsewhere, defying national law in order to do so. Name one organisation which has been part of the defiling of children in this way and is powerful enough to have broken national law in this way. JUST ONE ORGANISATION THAT COMES ANYWHERE NEAR THIS and you might have a case - otherwise case proven beyond any reasonable doubt - any unbiased jury would convict and throw the key away! Joe: "He may not agree with you, but he's open to discussion." I suspect that this may be due entirely to the changing fortunes of the church rather than to the character of the Pope. If any good has come out of this whole affair, it is the fact that it is making the church answerable for its behaviour, albeit gradually and extremely reluctantly. Certainly within my lifetime, if Catholics were to question the word of the Pope, the bishops, or even their p.p., they would be looking up for the lightning bolt. Now we have prosecutions and imprisonment of abusive clergymen, resignations of bishops, the demand for more, and even demands that H.H. should answer the charges against him (even the suggestion that he will be the first pope to be forced to resign) - the times they are a'changin' indeed! I never thought I'd live to see it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: mousethief Date: 17 Apr 10 - 01:24 AM The Pope's infallibility wasn't universally accepted in 1871. That's why we have Old Catholics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:43 PM I think Benedict/Ratzinger is an interesting phenomenon. He is a true intellectual. He may not agree with you, but he's open to discussion. I do not think he sees himself as infallible - but when he was John Paul II's Rottweiler, he seemed to consider John Paul II to be infallible. He tried to get John Paul's refusal to ordain women to be an infallible statement, but he missed one crucial element of infallibility. There was no universal acceptance of the refusal to ordain women, so the claim to infallibility of this statement lacks credibility. A pope can't just use authority to declare a statement infallible - the statement has to be credible, and universally accepted. To a great extent, the Vatican seems to have backed off its attempt to define JPII's statement as infallible, but ordination of women is NOT a subject Benedict is willing to discuss. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:35 PM "Scholars debate whether Constantine adopted his mother St. Helena's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[197] Constantine would retain the title of pontifex maximus until his death, a title emperors bore as heads of the pagan priesthood, as would his Christian successors on to Gratian (r. 375–83). According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, writing to Christians to make clear that he believed he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Peace Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:58 PM Mithra was ahead until Constantine was converted and decreed that Jesus was his choice.` ` Constantine didn`t become a Christian until he was on his death bed. Coins of that time show the Sun god AND the Cross. That boy covered both bases. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Greg F. Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:38 PM Sorry- let me re-state: Jimmy, you're at it again - facts not in evidence |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:30 PM "..history is always writ by those who conquered?" Kinda... And it is merely a historical accident that Jesus won over Ahura Mazda (Mithraism)in Rome. What there was of the Bible was read/transmitted in 'dockyards' Greek, and Mithra was ahead until Constantine was converted and decreed that Jesus was his choice. (If I remember correctly, there were 3 popes at one time back when power was being juggled.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:11 PM "the Catholic church considers there to be" Mmm, history is always writ by those who conquered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM Main Entry: Cath·o·lic Pronunciation: \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\ Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : a person who belongs to the universal Christian church ----------------------------------------------------------- Always in the background is the idea that all Christians SHOULD be 'catholic'... the Catholic church considers there to be an unbroken line of succession from Jesus thru St. Peter down to the present....(never mind the strange conglomeration of alternate Popes in the Middle AGES) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: GUEST,mg Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:43 PM Why does the pope all of a sudden become pope of all Christians? Has he in the past referred to Catholics or Christians when doing his papal duties? Catholics tend to refer to themselves as Catholics, at least in my neck of the woods. I think his latest pronouncement about how Christians must repent must be compared to his previous words..does he routinely say Christians instead of Catholics? Many denominations of Christians or non-demoninationals do not accept his papal authority. if he has consistently referred to Christians rather than Catholics, OK. If all of a sudden he is trying to be weasily, then not OK. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Ed T Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:25 PM An article from not too long ago: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican "The Vatican has lashed out at criticism over its handling of its paedophilia crisis by saying the Catholic church was "busy cleaning its own house" and that the problems with clerical sex abuse in other churches were as big, if not bigger." (note the reference to between 1.5% and 5%) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Bill D Date: 16 Apr 10 - 12:20 PM The pope has made 'remarks' about abuse, but "The main U.S. victims group immediately dismissed his comments," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 11:33 AM "Jimmie, you're at it again - facts not in evidence." Don't you just know when they're against the ropes when they start calling you 'Jimmie' (I spell mine with a 'y' BTW) And yes - you are being an apologist for child abuse by watering it down with irrelvant sidetracks. The facts of the involvement of the priests and their superiors need "hysteria & hyperbole" like Frankenstein needs another bolt though his neck - their behavior speaks for itself - so why look for worse abuses to compare it to? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Ed T Date: 16 Apr 10 - 09:11 AM As to "playing the statistics games"...sometimes it is how the the stats are collected....sometimes it is how the information is grouped together, and other information and confounding elements excluded....sometimes it is how the statistics are used to prove a point (like comparing one thing to a somewhat or totally different thing)...and sometimes the games involve the conclusions made...many times without actual logical analysis. That's what "the statistics game" often represents. To me, comparing reports of sexual abuse in an institution to reports of sexual abuse in the general population is self serving is not a reasonable comparison and to me is misleading..and I suggest possibly even intentionally misleading. Comparing sexual abuse in other institutions may be more logical, if confounding factors are noted. In the RC case, the 5 percent figure....which may be the best that one has....but is unlikely accurate is illogically compared with general sexual abuse figures. The reason is a very huge percentage of sexual abuse reports are in a home relationship or associated with dating type activities. When this is taken out of the figures, and it is limited to other similar institutions, I suspect the comparison would be much less positive...likely why few, who wish to make a point, take this route. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Greg F. Date: 16 Apr 10 - 08:41 AM Jimmie, you're at it again - facts not in evidence. I'n no apologist for child abuse, nor have I said anywhere that it is not a horrific crime. However, there are more than a little hysteria & hyperbole unsubstantiated claims re: the degree to which the Roman Catholic priesthood is concerned, vis a vis the rest of the world's population. It would be nice to put this problem in perspective & base things on factual evidence before one starts running one's mouth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 10 - 06:05 AM Ooops. Sorry, Jim. I didn't see your message. I'm glad it wasn't me you were accusing of denying abuse. I would have told you about it 35 years ago, which is when I first became aware of it. Sorry I yelled at you. I thought I was being accused of dishonesty, and I've always taken great pride in being scrupulously honest. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:48 AM An acknowledgement that I wasn't referring to you would be appreciated Joe, Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Apr 10 - 05:33 AM Hi, Willie- I'm the senior moderator, and I can see deleted posts; and no posts have been deleted from this thread at all. Sometimes, posted messages don't "take," usually because of a disagreement between your browser and Mudcat's software. I often suggest that when you type a long message, take a moment to highlight [CTRL-A] and copy [CTRL-C] the message, and then check to make sure the message posted. If it didn't, paste [CTRL-V] the text into a message box and try again. If it still doesn't post, paste it into a word-processing document and save it until the Mudcat software is in a better mood. We delete messages only for certain reasons: direct personal attack on another Mudcatter, Spam, outright racism, and anonymous posts and posts with deceptive poster names. You always post under the same name and you don't attack people, so you have little to worry about (other than computer glitches). -Joe- (I'm Catholic, but nobody removed your posts) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:36 AM I take it the moderator who removed my posts (after I had a couple agreeing with my sentiments) is a catholic then? No matter, denial is what allowed buggering of children to carry on for such a long time in the first place.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:01 AM "The situation you cite in Ireland - (if factual) Joe, "You have to be absolutely out of your mind, Jim." My remarks were aimed at our defensive abuse-apologist Greg F, not you. I know your position on the church and, while I don't agree with it, I accept it comes with some experience. Our friend here, on the other hand, seems to be trying to get the church off the hook by looking for other, worse, abusers (and not finding them, apparently). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Smokey. Date: 15 Apr 10 - 08:48 PM I fear we may differ somewhat on what constitutes 'reasonable precautions', but I more or less agree with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 07:46 PM Smokey, I think the lesson is that child molesters are drawn to situations where they can have time alone with children. They found a haven in the Boy Scouts until the Scouts instituted a "two-deep" leadership policy. It's not that the Boy Scouts were bad - it's that molesters found a place to operate there. And it took a long time and a lot of incidents and some attempt at denial before the Boy Scouts found a workable solution. It's not that the Catholic Church wants child molestation to happen - that would make no sense whatsoever. It's true that the Catholic Church did not have adequate safeguards in place. Much of that has changed, but the possibility of child molestation still exists wherever there are children in the company of adults. There are no sure-fire ways to prevent crime. All we can do is take reasonable precautions. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Smokey. Date: 15 Apr 10 - 07:27 PM They aren't my percentages Joe, you said 5% - I was using your figures, although you've clarified them further since then. I think it might well be more than that, but what would be your guess at the percentage if 5% is incorrect? And what percentage of those known priest/abusers have been actually locked up before they could offend further? Removing them from ministry doesn't necessarily stop them from being abusers. Also, we can only count the ones who have been discovered, there are bound to be more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: GUEST,mg Date: 15 Apr 10 - 07:07 PM Here is a cardinal telling the bishops not to report priests to police. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE63E2H420100415 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 07:05 PM OK, Smokey- Let's talk your percentages. Yes, if five percent of priests were molesters, that would be a big risk for children. In most cases in recent years, the molester-priests have been removed from ministry as soon as there is an accusation; and they are not returned to ministry if the accusation is found to be credible. They are not allowed to serve a complete career. That means that the number of active priests who are child molesters, is far smaller. That number is skewed by the fact that priests leave the priesthood for a number of other reasons, but the current practice is to remove child molester priests from active ministry immediately upon receipt of an accusation. Same goes for any crime. When people are convicted of crimes, they are put in jail and removed from society, thereby eliminating the risk until they are returned to society (with the often-unfounded hope that they have learned their lesson and will not commit the crime again). -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 06:55 PM Jim Carroll says: You started off by hinting that the reported abuse in Ireland may not have happened - you dropped that one quickly enough. What????You have to be absolutely out of your mind, Jim. I did no such thing. That is absolutely, totally, incontrovertibly irrational. Respectfully submitted, -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Greg F. Date: 15 Apr 10 - 05:03 PM the Catholic Church is the proven leader in the rape and physical abuse of children No, Jimmie-boy, as you yourself have admitted, this is NOT proven. When (and if) you can do so, get back in touch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: mousethief Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:48 PM If you find some little independent Baptist church whose pastor is a child abuser then you have an institution where 100% of the clergy is involved in child abuse. That's way worse than the Catholic Church. The difference is in the size of the institution. The RCC gets the most press because it's very very big. That doesn't prove it's the worst, except for some bizarre definition of "worst" where sheer numbers, rather than percents, are all that matters. If .001% of people eating at McDonald's report getting sick, but 66% of people eating at Mack's Chicken Shack, where would you rather go eat? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Donuel Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:22 PM Truth will set you free. Thats why the confessional is a sound concept. So far, Pope Benedict has made it perfectly clear that lying is preferable to telling the truth, and that protecting your business is paramount to all other concerns, including the health and safety of children. This is contrary to truth setting you free. How will this be reconciled by Ratzinger the man and Benedict the Pope? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Smokey. Date: 15 Apr 10 - 04:03 PM Smokey, if you could look at the criminal records of the people around you, you will find that one in twenty has committed some sort of crime that you would consider horrible. So, do you go through life not trusting the people around you, since one in twenty is a criminal? Yes, it is certainly a reason to be watchful - but certainly not a valid reason for abandoning human trust. Joe, I was talking specifically about priests committing certain crimes in certain situations. To try and equate that with all people, all crimes, and in all situations is plain nonsense. I was certainly not advocating the abandoning of human trust. I merely asked how the innocent priests could now be expected to be trusted with children. Do you honestly think people should trust priests with their children knowing (or thinking) there is a 1 in 20 chance they will be abused? I, for one, care about mine infinitely more than that, and there is no way I would take that chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 10 - 03:14 PM "Q.E.D...." As things stand at present the Catholic Church is the proven leader in the rape and physical abuse of children, just as, as things stand at present, Mount Everest is the highest on the planet. It may be that in some uspecified time in the future and in some far distant land, a higher mountain might be discovered, but until that time Everest goes on record as the highest, just as the Catholic Church goes on record as the Mount Everest of institutional abuse. What is this all about? You started off by hinting that the reported abuse in Ireland may not have happened - you dropped that one quickly enough. Now, it appears, you are hinting that the abuse that went on is less reprehensible because somewhere, sometime it MIGHT turn out that there will be cases of greater institutional abuse discovered. Your attempts to divert the attention away from the abuses that have been committed and/or tolerated by (obviously) your church is a form of abuse in itself. The Catholic Church not only sheltered, ignored and/or assisted child rapists, but, while doing so, they condemned and attempted to control the sexual behaviour of the laity, threatening them with eternal damnation and torture if they indulged in sex out of marriage, same-sex laisons, or even if they practiced sex for anything other than reproduction. All this makes them hypocrites as well as serial abusers. So "shut the fu$k up" up yourself now that your arguments have been reduced to vaccuuous invective. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic come all-ye From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 10 - 02:49 PM Jim Carroll says:
As for Ed T playing statistics games - Ed, take a look at the data sheet I linked to at bishop-accountability.org. Note the information supporting the 5.1% figure: The U.S. bishops have reported receiving allegations of abuse by 5,600 priests in 1950-2008, or 5.1% of the 109,694 U.S. priests active since 1950. Many incidents of child molestation go unreported, although I think the recent publicity had changed that tendency. Still, it does appear that a good proportion of the incidents are reported by the victims many years after the incident, after the victim has become an adult; and many, many incidents are NEVER. Therefore, it is well-nigh impossible impossible to collect completely accurate statistics of incidents. Still, the 5.1% number reflects the number of molesters who have been accused of even one incident - not those who have been convicted, and not limited to accusations that have been proved to be credible. I'm sure a few priests slipped through the cracks undetected. Note the chart in #3 (Year abuse began) on the data page - the highest incidence of molestations appears to be in the period 1968-1983, and the number drops dramatically after 1990. I think the post-1990 number will rise significantly as victims get old enough to want to report these crimes, but my guess is that the number will not be anywhere near the 1968-1983 rate. I'm guessing that overall, the number of U.S. priests who molested was somewhere between five and ten percent. And let me make it clear that I think that is outrageous and disgraceful, a deep mark of shame on the Catholic Church. Don't try to put words in my mouth and and attempt to make it appear that I think otherwise. I am outraged at this scandal, and I am outraged at the bishops who did nothing to stop it - and I am outraged at the pope and the bishops for a hell of a lot of other things....birth control, anti-homosexuality, repression of nuns, refusal to ordain women, misuse of funds, mollycoddling hateful ultra-conservatives, and on and on and on. A good third of the people, priests, and bishops in the Catholic Church are a real pain in the ass to me. They worship authoritarianism and pietism and small-mindedness and fear and prejudice and misogyny and anti-intellectualism and ultra-capitalism and a sheaf of other things that I think are absolutely contrary to the gentle, generous teachings of Jesus Christ. But I've found a home with the other two-thirds. -Joe- |