 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94....
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 09:11 AM Priests think abuse 'doesn't break celibacy'—ex-bishop Agence France-Presse 04/29/2010 SYDNEY—Some pedophile priests believe molesting children does not breach their vow of celibacy, a retired Australian Catholic bishop said in a magazine interview. Geoffrey Robinson, former auxiliary bishop of Sydney, told The Australian Women's Weekly he had made the observation during years of work with victims of child abuse within the church. "We've met it often enough to see it as a factor. That's what the vow of celibacy refers to, being married. If it's not an adult woman, then somehow they're not breaking their vow," the 72-year-old said. Robinson, who was abused as a child, although not by a priest, has previously criticized the handling of pedophilia cases by the church, which is facing a growing crisis over the issue. In his 2007 book, "Confronting Power and Sex In The Catholic Church," he also hit out at compulsory celibacy, which the Vatican's number two last week said was a "positive tradition" but "not untouchable." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 01 May 10 - 01:33 PM That is what I have been saying. The true sin would be with a woman. In their minds...mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 01 May 10 - 01:52 PM MG I raised this general possibility in another thread. Joe O stated the following, in response: "I can't agree with much of what you say about the thinking of "the church" on the matter of sexuality. Homosexual sex and sex with children is certainly not considered "less sinful" than sex with a woman". To be fair, maybe he was referring to RC Church organization thinking, not priests? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 03:17 PM Just in case you think it's just a few of us with axes to grind and that we are making it all up. One interesting aspect of this is that ten years ago there would be screams that Dukes would have been screams for Dukes' head on a plate - let's see what happens. Jim Carroll SERVING CATHOLIC BISHOPS SHOULD ALL RESIGN ANGLO IRISH Bank chairman Alan Dukes last night called for all current Irish Catholic bishops to resign. At the annual Burren Law School in Ballyvaughan, Co Clare, Mr Dukes called for a Ryan-type inquiry to be carried out in every diocese. In the opening address of the school, themed "Power - its Uses and Abuses", Mr Dukes heavily criticised the Irish regulatory authorities that presided over the boom and subsequent bust, claiming they had abused the power given to them. Mr Dukes said: "In both the financial sector and the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland and elsewhere, we have witnessed an abuse of power by those in direct contact with the public, and failure by the relevant regulatory or controlling authorities to take action to remedy the abuses. This failure in itself constituted an abuse of power." Mr Dukes said measures were now being taken in the financial sector to remedy past failures and that "analogous measures are needed in the Roman Catholic Church". He pointed out that in all the major banks, top level personnel have been replaced and that an inquiry into the origins and causes of the banking crisis is under way. "We have in place a new governor of the Central Bank and a new Financial Regulator. A Central Bank reform Bill has been published and new legislation on banking governance is in preparation." Calling for similar measures in the Catholic Church, Mr Dukes said that along with all bishops resigning and a Ryan-type inquiry in each diocese, there should be transparent criteria for assessment of the suitability of candidates for bishop, and that a new set of diocesan governance practices should be drawn up. Mr Dukes remarked that "bishops themselves seem to be even less ready to step down in the face of systematic failure than are chairmen of banks". Mr Dukes said the Vatican's response to clerical sex abuse was to conceal abuse and abusers in order to maintain a facade, rather than ensure that those whom it appointed to take charge of dioceses carried out their duty of care in a proper manner. In staunch criticism of the previous Irish regulatory regime, Mr Dukes said that the "regulatory authorities abused the power given to them by legislation by simply failing to use it in the face of clear failings on the part of market operators"....... IRISH TIMES 1.5.10. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 01 May 10 - 03:20 PM Whoops - another candidate for our typo guardian - should delete "screams that Dukes would have been" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 04:12 PM Well, for most of my life, I have been disgusted with the administration of the Catholic Church. John XXIII (1958-1963) is the only recent pope I can think of, who was truly exemplary. Most of the time, I have thought of the upper structure of the Catholic Church as a "necessary evil," but certainly not what it should be. My Sacramento diocese had a wonderful bishop from 1979-1993, and an excellent auxiliary bishop 1997-2006, so we've had it pretty good. The neighboring diocese, Santa Rosa, had a bishop who was horribly mismanaging church money while having an affair with a priest and covering up sexual abuse. You can imagine that the experience of Catholics in that diocese was quite different from mine, although even that diocese had parishes that were healthy. As I've said before, local parishes are quite autonomous. If a group of lay people get together and insist on having a healthy parish, they can usually accomplish it - even though the diocesan structure may be corrupt, and even though Rome has often been just as corrupt. Religious faith rests within individuals, never within structures. The structure can codify and publish things, but it never be the home of faith. Yes, I've known a few priests who have unrealistic ideas about sex, but most are far more realistic than a lot of lay men (religious and nonreligious) that I've met. If they're halfway decent people and halfway decent priests, they've heard it all; and they've come to a broader understanding that a lot of lay men have [personally, I think that most women have a far more realistic view of sex than most men have, but that's a matter for another thread]. I can't say I've ever known a priest who'd think that sex with a woman would be a worse sin than sex with a man or with a child. There is much written in official Catholic Church documents about the holiness of sex between a man and wife - and nothing approving any sort of sex outside of marriage. Catholic taboos against sex between men are strong enough that the Catholic Church can rightly be called "homophobic" as an institution. And yes, there are strong Catholic taboos against sex with children. Yeah, I'm sure that molesting priests have all sorts of strange thinking that rationalizes their conduct, and I'm sure that some may think they're not breaking their vows of celibacy - but you have to realize that child molesters are sexual perverts, and it follows that their thinking is going to be perverted. We humans are very good at rationalizing whatever it is that we want to do. I think that most people who do wrong, are very convinced that they're doing right. Sometimes I think we're less sure of ourselves when what we're doing actually is the right thing to do. Maybe that's when we rationalize something, we really work hard at constructing that rationalization and destroying our self-doubt. Maybe that's why the worst of the bishops are so sure of themselves. Religion can be the ultimate tool of rationalization - if we believe we have God on our side, how can we be wrong? And when that rationalization is institutionalized, the results can be deadly - as we have seen, time and time again. And that's why I have little respect for the institutional structure of the Catholic Church. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 01 May 10 - 04:32 PM I think we also have to look at the factor of anger..anger at being stuck in some dirty, run-down orphanage with sickly, unhappy children perhaps...anger at somehow being browbeaten into a vocation that was not really yours...anger at having to deal with adolescents all day long...at being deprived of much adult company..certainly that of women. I don't know. It is just something to think about. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 06:09 PM A lot of the nuns prior to Vatican II were angry, unhappy women who felt they had been pushed into the convent by family and other pressures, but it's very rare to see American nuns like that today. Some Catholic men became priests because of similar family pressure, especially in Ireland - but not as many as the nuns. But things have changed. For the most part, modern American nuns are strong, courageous women who are doing exactly what they believe they should be doing. Sister Judy, whom I affectionately refer to as "my boss," has been a nun for fifty years and has worked with the poor and homeless for over twenty years. She took two years off to work in Africa with refugees from Rwanda. She is a vivacious, attractive, intelligent woman. She loves men, and men fall all over themselves doing things for Sister Judy, and she loves it. She does what she does, because that's what she has chosen to do, not because she was ordered to do so by her superiors. She depends on her religious community for moral and emotional (and some financial) support - not for direction. Her religious community is her family that sustains her, not an organization that regulates her life. And because of complaints about this un-"orthodox" lifestyle of American nuns, the Vatican is investigating all the communities of nuns in the United States. Several months ago, a group of five Dominican nuns attended Sunday Mass in our parish. I talked with them afterwards. Their province is in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the province has been in existence about five years. They told me, "We are faithful nuns who wear the habit." I wanted to ask them if my friend Sister Judy, who has been a nun for fifty years and does NOT wear a habit, is any less faithful. But for once, I decided to hold my tongue. These new Dominicans have many young women joining their community, and Sister Judy's order has ONE woman in "formation," preparing to become a member. I wonder why the neoconservative orders are so popular, and the reformed traditional orders like Sister Judy's have so few new members. I do have to admit that the neoconservative nuns and priests do seem very happy. I may not agree with what they're doing, but it's clear that they're doing what they want to do. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 07:14 PM Post just made about why people feel happy in many social groupings now missing/deleted.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 01 May 10 - 07:42 PM Huh? I just checked, and there are no deleted posts in this thread - but half the time, I'm not sure what you're talking about, foolestroupe... Maybe you had a post that didn't "take" for technical reasons, but I can't quite understand what you're saying. Perhaps, you should try to be more clear in your expression.. I wish people would stop alleging that their posts have been deleted. It makes others suspicious, and we moderators haven't done anything to give cause for such suspicion. If you're logged in, it's very unlikely that your post has been deleted unless it is a direct personal attack against another Mudcatter. If it disappears right when you post it, it's most likely a technical problem. If you highlight [CTRL-A] and save [CTRL-S] your messages before you submit them, you can easily rectify the problem. If you didn't do that, try the BACK button on your browser - but chances are that if you didn't save a lost message before posting, it's lost forever (but that it hasn't been deleted). If you are a Guest here, then every message you post will be reviewed, and any Guest post that has even a whiff of animosity, is likely to be deleted. The lesson? Register as a Mudcatter, and log in. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 08:08 PM I just couldn't be bothered trying to recreate it and my mind had already moved onto writing other posts on other threads, no 'attack' intended, Joe. I may recall most of it much later. "If you highlight [CTRL-A] and save [CTRL-S] your messages before you submit them, you can easily rectify the problem. If you didn't do that, try the BACK button on your browser" Works ONLY if you use a single tab on Firefox all the time. If you press 'send' and close the window which now just shows you the thread list, then open another new thread in a new tab (I often run down the list and open several new tabs at once) to post in, it's gone forever, and can not be got back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 01 May 10 - 08:13 PM Also, I regularly highlight and [ctrl]C - but when the window appears with the title un-highlighted, I ASS-U-ME that my post has taken, but sometimes someone ELSE has also just posted... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Amos Date: 02 May 10 - 12:58 PM An inspiring defense of the real Catholic Church, far removed from the highjinks of Popery. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 02 May 10 - 03:23 PM "I have more respect for the Dalai Lama than I have had for any pope since John XXIII" Quote, Joe O. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 May 10 - 05:18 AM Following the survey which revealed that 32% of the population of Ireland has 'no trust at all in the Church', it seems that their role in education is now under scrutiny. Could be one of the positive things to have been raised by the asbuse inquiries. If mistrust is here, can non-denominational schools be far behind? Jim Carroll RELIGIOUS CONTROL OF SCHOOLS A VERY FRAUGHT ISSUE The issue of religious control of schools is "very fraught" and will pose difficult challenges for the Government, Minister for Education Mary Coughlan has been warned by her department. In briefing material which was prepared for the newly appointed Minister last March, Ms Coughlan was told of growing calls for a secular and less segregated system of education. However, officials also said demand for Catholic schools remained strong, with fresh requests for new Catholic secondary schools in parts of the country where there had been an increase in population. The latest figures show the Catholic Church is the patron of more than 90 per cent of primary schools in the State. The church is also the dominant force at second level, controlling more than 400 of the 700 second-level schools. The debate over the church's control of schools was heightened following the publication of the Ryan and Murphy reports last year into the abuse of children in its care. "The whole issue of school patronage in a changing landscape is a very fraught one," the briefing material says. "We are in a very difficult space of how we can reconcile conflicting objectives: the traditional rights of different religious groupings to have their own State funded schools, rights of those who want secular education, desirability of inclusive schooling and the need to avoid segregated schooling. "This is all against a landscape where education provision reflects the historic dominance of Catholic education." While the department has recognised growing numbers of secular schools at both primary and secondary level in recent years, it says there is widespread demand for a greater diversity of schools. These conflicting objectives are even more acute at second level, according to officials. "The desire by Educate Together to be recognised for new second-level schools and the request for new Catholic schools possess difficult questions about the framework for recognising new second-level schools," according to the briefing material, which was released under the Freedom of Information Act. The department has been holding private talks with the church over the patronage of schools. Batt O'Keeffe, Ms Coughlan's predecessor as minister at the department, has said that nothing would change in the patronage of church-run schools without the full and prior consultation of local communities. This process could involve holding plebiscites to test local views, while discussions would also have to take place with alter¬native patrons. The multi-denominational group Educate Together has been mentioned as one body which could take over management of the schools. Local vocational education committees could also have a crucial role. Two new State-run community primary schools have been estab¬lished on a pilot basis under the umbrella of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee (VEC). communities. This process could involve holding plebiscites to test local views, while discussions would also have to take place with alternative patrons. The multi-denominational group Educate Together has been mentioned as one body which could take over management of the schools. Local vocational education com¬mittees could also have a crucial role Two new State-run community primary schools have been established on a pilot basis under the umbrella of the Dublin Vocational Education Committee (VEC). Senior figures have sent out mixed messages about the church's patronage of both primary and secondary schools in recent months. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin has acknowledged that the church is over-represented in primary education. However, Cardinal Sean Brady has issued a staunch defence of the church's continued role in education. Cardinal Brady has said that if parents wanted to send their children to a Catholic school, then the school should have the right to Government funding if it complied with the State curriculum. Irish Times |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 10 - 01:09 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/world/europe/03maciel.html?hp=&pagewanted=all And that is just horse pucky that Ratzinger could not have done anything. He could have spoken out and told the truth..maybe lost his cardinalship but kept his soul. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 May 10 - 03:01 PM mg.Guest; Do you know you've just posted message number 666 - symbolic or what? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,mg Date: 03 May 10 - 03:41 PM That is more a Protestant thing. Well, I heard a great sermon yesterday...a very old, possibly senile priest...rambled on and on and then burst into clarity and said not to use our cellphones when driving. That made sense. I understand sermons like that. THere was another one in Newfoundland that made sense..it was St. Patrick's Day and I followed the parade into church..where there were lots of school boys...and the priest told the boys not to make fun of the old people. That I understood. Now I have 2 sermons I understood. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 03 May 10 - 07:36 PM The reverse side also has a reverse side |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 03 May 10 - 11:21 PM "I have more respect for the Dalai Lama than I have had for any pope since John XXIII" Quote, Joe O. ....and still true today. But to Benedict/Ratzinger's credit, I have to say that it appears it was Ratzinger who initiated investigation of the infamous Fr. Maciel, despite the fact that Maciel was one of John Paul II's favorites. Maciel was a molester, a morphine addict, a philanderer and father of several illegitimate children, and founder of an ultraconservative religious order. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 06:31 AM "Celibacy can indeed be a challenge but the vast majority of sexual abuse is not committed by celibates," says Ms Smith. "We found 4% [of priests] involved in child abuse - that means for 96% celibacy did not present a challenge in terms of child abuse." From the study cited, there is absolutely no locical behind this statement that I can see. This was a comment from a recent story in the BBC. It is an example of folks defending a topic by twisting statistics around to support a conclusion they have already made. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8654789.stm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 03:32 PM I can't see a connection between celibacy and child abuse, but I can see how the existence of the rule might provide some cover for anyone with unconventional tastes, as does priesthood in general. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 04:10 PM In other words (the article says) that if a priest is not a child sex abuser, than he is celibate and has no issues with being so...a likely story. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 05:11 PM I don't see how anyone could possibly know that.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 06:06 PM Smokey That is the problem with this issue. On one side the RC defenders say no one knows how to detect, deal with or cure child sex offenders. But, in the defense some quote exact statistical numbers (as if there is any way to deduce they are anywhere accurate)and rule out so blatenly throries of the real numbers in the ranks, what makes them tick and are so sure they have 'em all coraled up somewhere(with little change in the institution or people that condoned or ignored it, or understanding what may have encouraged it) so it will never (or, is so less likely to, occur again). It is clearly in the past. Yea, right! It may be good for PR and to console the faithful (who want to believe), but not so good for good old common sense. That's why so many folks don't buy into it....and it does not go away. It's not the media slant, or anti RC folks...its because of old good old common sense....it simply does not pass the good ols "smell test". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 06:27 PM The RCC's method of detecting child abusers seems to be to give them access to a lot of children and see if anyone complains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 04 May 10 - 07:32 PM Smokey, unfortunately, that seems to be how child molesters are found. As far as I can tell, there is no way to predict that a person is going to be a child molester. The people you'd least suspect, are the most successful child molesters. It's only after the crime, that you know a person is a child molester. Do you have evidence to the contrary? So, what do we do, line up our favorite prejudices, and list them as causes for child molestation? The Vatican and others did that with homosexuality, and rightly fell flat on their faces. I suppose you could say that people who work with children are the most likely to be child molesters - but do they molest because they work with children, or do they seek out such jobs because they seek an opportunity to molest, or does the opportunity cause them to become molesters? I think it's none of the three. The percentage of molesters in any group or class is so small, then being part of a group or class is not a valid predictor. And that includes celibacy. Only a small number of celibates molest children (and for that matter, if they molest, then they are no longer celibate, are they?) -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 08:02 PM Smokey, unfortunately, that seems to be how child molesters are found. As far as I can tell, there is no way to predict that a person is going to be a child molester. The people you'd least suspect, are the most successful child molesters. It's only after the crime, that you know a person is a child molester. Exactly my point, Joe, of course I don't have contrary evidence. Hence my stance on removal of opportunities being the most effective way to prevent abuse. I think abusers or potential abusers are attracted to the job because of the opportunities and cover it provides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 08:09 PM And, is it also reasonable to assume that many who one may feel, or even state they are celibate (at fear of losing a job or status) are not celebate at all? And, is it not reasonable to speculate (though I caution against using a statistic) that some priests may have a different meaning of what being celibate really is, as the former Bishop (I earlier linked to) seemed to find in his experience in the RC church. I recall former USA President Clinton had a number of definitions on what sexual acts "having sex with a woman" included:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 04 May 10 - 08:30 PM I seriously doubt whether many priests are literally celibate at all, although the only way to actually find out would be to ask them, which would be rather futile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mg Date: 04 May 10 - 09:17 PM I think it might be very easy to predict at least which people are attracted to children by some fairly standard physiological testing. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 09:32 PM I suspect there are many people who are attracted to children sexually, but would never offend or abuse...its likely difficult ot separate them out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 10:26 PM More statistics...for what purpose, I am unsure. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004094-503544.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 04 May 10 - 10:32 PM The overlooked:http://www.snapnetwork.org/female_victims/female_victims_index.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 May 10 - 03:09 AM It is amazing the contortions some people get into, trying to avoid eye contact with the "elephant". Up to 50% of priests and seminarians are homosexual(2% in the real world). The mass of Clerical sexual abuse is not "paedophilia" but sexual abuse by men against teenage boys and youths. To say abusers in these circumstances are not motivated by sexual preference is just suspension of reason. As intelligent people, you should all be ashamed of yourselves...(I make an exception for Smokey) :0) The reason the problem is not being investigated on these grounds, is that the "liberal" media are just waiting round the corner with their hatchets....the thought police are winning! The breaking of the church as the last bastion of "conservatism" is the agenda and this battle will be of great importance to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 05 May 10 - 04:08 AM
Yes, and the downfall of that bastard Maciel was a good, strong blow to Catholic conservatives. Let's hope a few more pieces fall in that house of cards. I'm tired of all their attacks of the progress made by Vatican II. I'm tired of their smug moralism, their drive to silence all who disagree with them, their clamoring for a return to regimentation and authoritarianism and prejudice. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 May 10 - 06:24 AM I refer to the attachment in my last post, under "Nuns as sexual victims get little notice" If one excludes the priest who sexually abused children, those who abused nuns and other employees, and separate out those who has sex of some type with parishoners and others...(and those who are not domain masters) I would be surprised in any significant number practice celibacy anyway. I suspect it is as Joe O often says as to the faithful...they just do what they want to do (birth control etc.) and ignore most of what the Vatican says anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 05 May 10 - 07:01 AM "Up to 50% of priests and seminarians are homosexual(2% in the real world)" Where did this number came from, sources please. If in the unlikely case that the number proposed were true, the connection to RC child sexual abuse (who cares what term folks call it, and for whatever reason, they were still children and they were still sexually abused) does not seem to backed up by peer reviewed (aka unbiased) research, or sound logic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 05 May 10 - 05:17 PM Not all conservatism is bad Joe and as I have said previously, in the church a large measure of conservatism is an absolute necessity. The church should be a defender of traditional values and never allow itself to be silenced by whatever is morally in fashion. People like Maciel are not "the Church" they are an aberration which should be stamped out in the strongest possible terms. The Church should forget about sickening, meaningless apologies for crimes it did not commit and offer up the real criminals to the secular courts. If we really wanted an answer to why this abuse happened(which we dont), we would make every person convicted of sexual abuse against minors take a sexual orientation test.....will that happen?...never! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 05 May 10 - 05:31 PM "Up to" 50%? Quite correct, when read carefully.. Indeed, it could be "up to" 99%. Perhaps "a disproportionately high number" might be more accurate? The actual proportion of homosexuals in the priesthood shouldn't really be a problem though. I think the root of the problem is the nature of the job itself and the opportunities and temptations it presents. It should also be remembered that not all homosexuals are of a predatory nature, and about half(?) of them are inclined to be 'feminine' in nature. Admittedly that is a gross oversimplification of homosexuality, but approximately right enough to make my point, which is that if it was simply the presence of homosexuality in the priesthood which was causing the abuse, there would be far less of it than there obviously is. The job attracts perverts of the worst kind, and that appears to have been the case for at least a thousand years. I find it very odd that in all that time, nothing effective has been done by the RCC to prevent it. Dealing with individual cases is all well and good, on the rare occasions it happens, but it's a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: akenaton Date: 06 May 10 - 02:10 AM I agree that opportunity is obviously a factor here Smokey, but it still leaves us with the inconvenient issue of sexual orientation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: mousethief Date: 06 May 10 - 02:53 AM And concocted statistics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 06 May 10 - 03:45 AM WHO CARES who's straight and who's gay? It's a side-issue. Sexually assaulting someone weaker - whether children, women, or the feeble-minded - is the real evil, whatever the combination of genders. Lying and seeking to cover it up compound the iniquity. These are the real matters which need to be addressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) Date: 06 May 10 - 09:03 AM Bonnie, Maybe we should just let the boys step outside. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 01:07 PM " These are the real matters which need to be addressed. " You have to be joking Bonnie - this obsessive is not going to give up his homophobic platform even if it is built on the backs of abused children. Akenaton, Once again, the perpetrators of these abuses were paedophiles, not homosexuals - if you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it, but not on a thread on clerical abuse against children. I would have thought they had been 'used' enough without your capitalising on their suffering to get over your homophobic message. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 06 May 10 - 01:38 PM Not saying it's not important, Jim - just saying it's a separate issue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 May 10 - 02:55 PM "It's a seperate issue" Not in the terms it has been set out by akenaton. As you rightly say, it has no relevence to this particular topic, yet, despite this, he has used four seperate threads on clerical child abuse to promote his particicular brand of homophobia He does this in the form of pronouncements - making unqualified statements and then ignoring requests to back them up. He claims to have no axe to grind with homosexuality, yet has attempted time and again to portray them as disease-carrying perverts with no control over their perversions. He hasn't the bottle to open a thread devoted to his own particular perversion, but rather, chooses threads on abused children to put his message across. He has referred to those of us who have expressed our disgust at clerical sex abuse as 'reliphobes', and those of us who have objected to his persistent bigotry have been called 'snide'. He has claimed to be a non-christian, yet he has sprung to the defence of a heirarchy which hid and facilitated child abuse for decades. As you say - it's a seperate issue. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 May 10 - 03:26 PM Hi, Ed - I wouldn't say Catholics "just do what they want to do (birth control etc.) and ignore most of what the Vatican says." My observation is that they do what they think is right - there's a difference. As for the percentage of priests who have a homosexual orientation, you takes your pick on the number. This page (click) seems to give a pretty good summary on the information, and the numbers run from 10 to 50 percent. My guess is about 30%, and I'd guess that under 10 percent have been active homosexuals. I'd also guess that the number of priests who are celibate is more like 80% - but I imagine some of those 80 percent have had sex a few times. Most priests take the vow of celibacy quite seriously - even though they may not like it. I suppose I tend to look on the positive side of things, because that's my nature. My experience in life tells me that 90 percent of people are pretty good folks. My experience of Mudcat tells me about 90 percent of Mudcatters are pretty good folks, maybe even 95%. And I'd guess the same percentage for priests, and for Catholics in general. We humans aren't as bad a race as some people think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Smokey. Date: 06 May 10 - 03:55 PM I'd say people are pretty good 90% of the time - they're seldom completely one or the other. Sexuality can be a bit like that too, given the right circumstances. Nothing is black-and-white. Does the celibacy rule cover masturbation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Clerical child abuse Part 94.... From: Ed T Date: 06 May 10 - 03:58 PM And, I once heard that 76.2% of the people make up statistics to prove a point....or was it 74.3? :) You know,most statistics "don't impress me much". (I guess I have gotten this accross in some of my posts). I respect research...but, I take fuzzy, biased (funded by an interest group) or non peer reviewed research, much like I take opinion and theories from any vested viewpoint...as just what they are, and then I add a quite a few grains of salt, to balance it out. One persons guess is often just as good as the next persons, regardless of the degree of personal experience they bring forward to boost legitimacy. We all can be right in our guesses and we all can also be wrong, regardless of who we hang out with. I have posted links from many different perspectives, some that make sense, some that don't hold water under close examination. I do it to add perspective and stimulate discussion and hopefully to move this puzzling issue a bit forward. We likely won't solve the problem (and even if we did, who would listen)...but, most of us feel a degree of concern over it(and yes, even emotion...which like others, I get caught up on at times),though we may differ as to our views on many related matters. On most of these matters, I can honestly say, I don't know. |