Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/30/2008 4:39:31 AM EST
Since this topic was brought up in another thread, I'd like to point out some of the facts often overlooked about the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal.

Hopefully, this can be discussed in a respectful manner, examining the facts without getting the thread locked. Please refrain from commenting without reading the following links.

Check these out:
Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse than Catholic Church

Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?

Released Figures Offer Glimpse into Protestant Sex Abuse Problems

Study by John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Sexual Abuse in Social Context

Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches

I am not using this as a way to shift blame, only to illustrate that priests are not the only people who have abused children. It appears that any profession that allows people close, unsupervised contact with children will attract people with less than good intentions. Better screening needs to be in place.

It's true that the abuses were handled poorly by the Church in many cases. But what organization doesn't have the same "protect our own" mentality. Don't tell me that a wife-beating cop will be turned in by his cop buddies every single time. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

Also, keep in mind that many priests probably revealed their sins in confession, therefore the priest they confessed to was bound by confidentiality NOT to report them. They can only encourage the person to seek help.

These men are sinners, as we all are. Don't judge the entire Catholic Church by a small percentage of sinful members. Instead, pray for these men and their victims.

Link Posted: 5/30/2008 7:43:13 AM EST
I agree that there are sexual predators in every group. Each organization has to take steps (sadly) to make sure it doesn't become a haven or magnet for such predators.


For example, my church has a lay(unpaid) priesthood. Members can be called to serve in any number of callings from nursery teacher to financial clerk to bishop. Because of past situations where someone abused their position to prey on children, all male teachers in the classroom now have to be accompanied by his own wife or else be accompanied by another male team teacher.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 8:11:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Shane333:
I agree that there are sexual predators in every group. Each organization has to take steps (sadly) to make sure it doesn't become a haven or magnet for such predators.


For example, my church has a lay(unpaid) priesthood. Members can be called to serve in any number of callings from nursery teacher to financial clerk to bishop. Because of past situations where someone abused their position to prey on children, all male teachers in the classroom now have to be accompanied by his own wife or else be accompanied by another male team teacher.


The Catholic Church instituted Safe Environment Programs in 2003 to address these issues. These programs include background checks, educating children about personal safety, and training pertaining to "prevention, identification, and response and reporting" for anyone who has contact with youth.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 9:02:44 AM EST
Just like the Iraq war of 2004 doesn't match the facts on the ground today, so too, the Catholic Church - for all its problems and there are many - is not playing by the same rules as in 2002.

Every parish, every retreat center, every diocese, religious order, etc. has mandated draconian, across the board, no excuse to opt out training and oaths for ALL personnel dealing with or even close to children detailing the protocols for what happens if the slightest whisper of abuse is stumbled upon.

Most of the perps are dead, incarcerated, or defrocked and expelled. Only a handful remain in the priesthood and the overwhelming number of those are are permanent 'leave' residing in half a dozen treatment centers or forced retirement homes.

Furthermore, the seminaries have been cleaned up - people fired, people removed from office, whole faculties changed, etc. to ensure a new generation doesn't get through the system with those sorts of psychological problems.

We will have fewer priests but better ones. And these changes are permanent - alot of the lax attitude is gone and institutional policies are in place to preclude unfettered access without oversight of priests with children. Now lay men are involved (dads) across the board in schools, parishes, etc.

So I think the worst is past for us, and only now will the general public have to come to grips with their own problems.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 2:03:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:


I am not using this as a way to shift blame, only to illustrate that priests are not the only people who have abused children. It appears that any profession that allows people close, unsupervised contact with children will attract people with less than good intentions . . .


But doesn't it increase the likelihood of problems when you start with the premise that ONLY people who do not desire a normal, healthy, God-given physical relationship with a spouse need apply?
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 2:48:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By Cattitude:


I am not using this as a way to shift blame, only to illustrate that priests are not the only people who have abused children. It appears that any profession that allows people close, unsupervised contact with children will attract people with less than good intentions . . .


But doesn't it increase the likelihood of problems when you start with the premise that ONLY people who do not desire a normal, healthy, God-given physical relationship with a spouse need apply?


Actually no, I don't think it does. Many of the Catholic priests found to be abusers were actually homosexuals targeting adolescent boys. These individuals are obviously not attracted to a "normal, healthy, God-given physical relationship with a spouse" in the first place.

Furthermore, how do explain the nearly equal rate of abuse seen in married clergy of other religions? What about the teachers caught abusing kids? The abuse rate was actually higher than among priests! No, celibacy is not the issue here.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 3:11:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:


Actually no, I don't think it does. Many of the Catholic priests found to be abusers were actually homosexuals targeting adolescent boys. These individuals are obviously not attracted to a "normal, healthy, God-given physical relationship with a spouse" in the first place . . .


Not to be argumentative . . . . really, that's not my intention . . . but that's exactly the point. When you eliminate normal heterosexuals from the pool of applicants you shouldn't be surprised if you get sexual deviates signing up for duty . . .

Link Posted: 5/30/2008 4:57:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By Cattitude:


Actually no, I don't think it does. Many of the Catholic priests found to be abusers were actually homosexuals targeting adolescent boys. These individuals are obviously not attracted to a "normal, healthy, God-given physical relationship with a spouse" in the first place . . .


Not to be argumentative . . . . really, that's not my intention . . . but that's exactly the point. When you eliminate normal heterosexuals from the pool of applicants you shouldn't be surprised if you get sexual deviates signing up for duty . . .



You, argumentative? Never!

First off, homosexuals are not supposed to be admitted to the seminary. These guys were either admitted due to lax standards or they lied. So, normal heterosexuals are NOT excluded or eliminated from the priesthood in any way.

Secondly, living a chaste lifestyle does not create sexual deviants. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but others have, so there it is.

Finally, take your argument to the next logical step. I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that allowing Catholic priests to marry would significantly decrease the level of sex abuse of children in the Catholic Church? If so, then how do you explain the rate of sex abuse among married clergy of other religions? That argument just doesn't hold water.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 5:34:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/30/2008 5:47:39 PM EST by Bladeswitcher]

Originally Posted By Cattitude:

You, argumentative? Never!

First off, homosexuals are not supposed to be admitted to the seminary. These guys were either admitted due to lax standards or they lied. So, normal heterosexuals are NOT excluded or eliminated from the priesthood in any way.

Secondly, living a chaste lifestyle does not create sexual deviants. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but others have, so there it is.

Finally, take your argument to the next logical step. I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that allowing Catholic priests to marry would significantly decrease the level of sex abuse of children in the Catholic Church? If so, then how do you explain the rate of sex abuse among married clergy of other religions? That argument just doesn't hold water.


First, I bristle a bit on the argumentative jab. I may have strongly held views but I always try to present them respectfully.

Second, I assume that the number/percentage of pedophile priests is very small compared to the overall ranks of Catholic clergy. And yes, I know that many priests make a willing sacrifice of marriage. I just consider it weird and counter to the very picture God gives of the intercourse of word and spirit in his scriptures.

Three, Yes, I do believe that the demand for celibacy is a set-up . . . for all sorts of problems, not just pedophile priests. I also think it's wrong on a number of levels, both moral, practical and religious. But that's just opinion.

Fourth, people are subject to sin, so I would not expect that other religions would be immune to sex problems. It does seem that protestant church scandals tend more to the minister/secretary, minister/choir member opposite sex thing and less so to child abuse but, admittedly, that may be a function of media attention.

Fifth, a lot of protestant churches lack the level of professional hierarchy that the Catholic church has. In a lot of denominations/religious traditions it doesn't take anything more than hanging out a shingle to be a pastor or a minister. As religion has always been a popular and fruitful playing field for scoundrels, it doesn't surprise me that a fair number of (non-Catholic) people who would prey on others would choose religion as their venue. What made the Catholic situation so disturbing was the apparent williness of the hierarchy to look the other way.
Link Posted: 5/30/2008 7:28:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

First, I bristle a bit on the argumentative jab. I may have strongly held views but I always try to present them respectfully.


For that, I apologize. Just trying to keep things light; I thought the little winking icon conveyed that, but apparently not. Sorry.


Second, I assume that the number/percentage of pedophile priests is very small compared to the overall ranks of Catholic clergy. And yes, I know that many priests make a willing sacrifice of marriage. I just consider it weird and counter to the very picture God gives of the intercourse of word and spirit in his scriptures.

Three, Yes, I do believe that the demand for celibacy is a set-up . . . for all sorts of problems, not just pedophile priests. I also think it's wrong on a number of levels, both moral, practical and religious. But that's just opinion.


Here is an excerpt from an article on catholic.com:
"The decision to remain celibate is freely chosen by seminarians, and it is not the Church that is forbidding them to marry. They may choose married or celibate life according to where the Lord is calling them. Making such a pledge of celibacy is not foreign to the New Testament. In fact, one chapter after Paul denounces those who forbid marriage, he mentions Christian widows who make a pledge of celibacy-and how they will incur condemnation if their sensuality estranges them from Christ by enticing them to marry. By reading Paul's words on marriage and celibacy in context, it becomes clear that forbidding marriage is one thing and freely making a vow of virginity is another.

Unfortunately, celibacy is often defined by what it gives up instead of what it embraces. Contrary to popular belief, celibacy does not mean that priests and nuns are unmarried. Mother Teresa said that someone once asked her if she was married. She replied in the affirmative-and added that her Spouse can be very demanding at times! What Christians often overlook is that earthly marriages are not eternal (Luke 20:35). They are a foreshadowing and a sign of that eternal wedding that will take place in heaven between the Church and Christ. Those who have consecrated their virginity to God are simply skipping the earthly sign and participating in the eternal marriage now. This is a beautiful witness to the world that there is more to life than the passing joys we know on earth."

Here's the link if anyone is interested: www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104sbs.asp


Fourth, people are subject to sin, so I would not expect that other religions would be immune to sex problems. It does seem that protestant church scandals tend more to the minister/secretary, minister/choir member opposite sex thing and less so to child abuse but, admittedly, that may be a function of media attention.

Fifth, a lot of protestant churches lack the level of professional hierarchy that the Catholic church has. In a lot of denominations/religious traditions it doesn't take anything more than hanging out a shingle to be a pastor or a minister. As religion has always been a popular and fruitful playing field for scoundrels, it doesn't surprise me that a fair number of (non-Catholic) people who would prey on others would choose religion as their venue. What made the Catholic situation so disturbing was the apparent williness of the hierarchy to look the other way.


The hierarchy did make mistakes, but I wouldn't say they always looked the other way. More often, I think there were misguided and naive attempts to handle things "in house" through counseling and reassignment to positions where there wouldn't be contact with kids. Obviously, that didn't work. They will be judged by a power higher than all of us.
Link Posted: 5/31/2008 12:55:08 PM EST
I would like to say to the people who complain that the Church isn't do anything about the scandals that they are wrong. The process takes time. Excommunication is the most serious and grave punishment the Church can impose. Therefore, they have to absolutely CERTAIN that the priest is guilty before kicking him out. I will say that the pastor of my parish was accused by someone of sex abuse several years ago. The case is being handled very carefully so that he gets a fair say. They are expecting it to take a long time. He has been forbidden to say Mass in public while the case is being reviewed. I believe he went to a rehab center, too. They don't want to be too quick to excommunicate him, but they will if he is found guilty.


Thanks Cattitude for starting this thread. This was bothering me too.
Link Posted: 5/31/2008 4:12:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By LoganSackett:
I would like to say to the people who complain that the Church isn't do anything about the scandals that they are wrong. The process takes time. Excommunication is the most serious and grave punishment the Church can impose. Therefore, they have to absolutely CERTAIN that the priest is guilty before kicking him out. I will say that the pastor of my parish was accused by someone of sex abuse several years ago. The case is being handled very carefully so that he gets a fair say. They are expecting it to take a long time. He has been forbidden to say Mass in public while the case is being reviewed. I believe he went to a rehab center, too. They don't want to be too quick to excommunicate him, but they will if he is found guilty.


Thanks Cattitude for starting this thread. This was bothering me too.


No problem!

Another "victim" in all of this is the priests who have been falsely accused - it seems they are guilty until proven innocent in these cases. If your pastor is indeed innocent, how terrible for him to have to endure this. If he is guilty, he'll get what he deserves, one way or another.
Link Posted: 5/31/2008 6:22:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:

Originally Posted By LoganSackett:
I would like to say to the people who complain that the Church isn't do anything about the scandals that they are wrong. The process takes time. Excommunication is the most serious and grave punishment the Church can impose. Therefore, they have to absolutely CERTAIN that the priest is guilty before kicking him out. I will say that the pastor of my parish was accused by someone of sex abuse several years ago. The case is being handled very carefully so that he gets a fair say. They are expecting it to take a long time. He has been forbidden to say Mass in public while the case is being reviewed. I believe he went to a rehab center, too. They don't want to be too quick to excommunicate him, but they will if he is found guilty.


Thanks Cattitude for starting this thread. This was bothering me too.


No problem!

Another "victim" in all of this is the priests who have been falsely accused - it seems they are guilty until proven innocent in these cases. If your pastor is indeed innocent, how terrible for him to have to endure this. If he is guilty, he'll get what he deserves, one way or another.


I'm hoping this was a false accusation. It seems that after a couple priests were caught, everyone who hates the Church accused one of sex abuse.
Link Posted: 6/1/2008 5:24:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By Cattitude:

You, argumentative? Never!

First off, homosexuals are not supposed to be admitted to the seminary. These guys were either admitted due to lax standards or they lied. So, normal heterosexuals are NOT excluded or eliminated from the priesthood in any way.

Secondly, living a chaste lifestyle does not create sexual deviants. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but others have, so there it is.

Finally, take your argument to the next logical step. I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that allowing Catholic priests to marry would significantly decrease the level of sex abuse of children in the Catholic Church? If so, then how do you explain the rate of sex abuse among married clergy of other religions? That argument just doesn't hold water.


First, I bristle a bit on the argumentative jab. I may have strongly held views but I always try to present them respectfully.

Second, I assume that the number/percentage of pedophile priests is very small compared to the overall ranks of Catholic clergy. And yes, I know that many priests make a willing sacrifice of marriage. I just consider it weird and counter to the very picture God gives of the intercourse of word and spirit in his scriptures.


Matthew 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.



Three, Yes, I do believe that the demand for celibacy is a set-up . . . for all sorts of problems, not just pedophile priests. I also think it's wrong on a number of levels, both moral, practical and religious. But that's just opinion.


So...despite the words Christ, you think celibacy is not moral or practical?

The 'world' obviously agrees with you, its good to know you are with them.



Fourth, people are subject to sin, so I would not expect that other religions would be immune to sex problems. It does seem that protestant church scandals tend more to the minister/secretary, minister/choir member opposite sex thing and less so to child abuse but, admittedly, that may be a function of media attention.


Statistics please? A citation, a link? Media attention is the driver. And the perception of deep pockets is in the passenger seat (that's in the Lawyer 101 tectbook).
Link Posted: 6/1/2008 6:36:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/1/2008 6:37:15 PM EST by Bladeswitcher]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:

Originally Posted By Cattitude:

You, argumentative? Never!

First off, homosexuals are not supposed to be admitted to the seminary. These guys were either admitted due to lax standards or they lied. So, normal heterosexuals are NOT excluded or eliminated from the priesthood in any way.

Secondly, living a chaste lifestyle does not create sexual deviants. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but others have, so there it is.

Finally, take your argument to the next logical step. I assume, and correct me if I'm wrong, you think that allowing Catholic priests to marry would significantly decrease the level of sex abuse of children in the Catholic Church? If so, then how do you explain the rate of sex abuse among married clergy of other religions? That argument just doesn't hold water.


First, I bristle a bit on the argumentative jab. I may have strongly held views but I always try to present them respectfully.

Second, I assume that the number/percentage of pedophile priests is very small compared to the overall ranks of Catholic clergy. And yes, I know that many priests make a willing sacrifice of marriage. I just consider it weird and counter to the very picture God gives of the intercourse of word and spirit in his scriptures.


Matthew 19:12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.



Three, Yes, I do believe that the demand for celibacy is a set-up . . . for all sorts of problems, not just pedophile priests. I also think it's wrong on a number of levels, both moral, practical and religious. But that's just opinion.


So...despite the words Christ, you think celibacy is not moral or practical?

The 'world' obviously agrees with you, its good to know you are with them.



Fourth, people are subject to sin, so I would not expect that other religions would be immune to sex problems. It does seem that protestant church scandals tend more to the minister/secretary, minister/choir member opposite sex thing and less so to child abuse but, admittedly, that may be a function of media attention.


Statistics please? A citation, a link? Media attention is the driver. And the perception of deep pockets is in the passenger seat (that's in the Lawyer 101 tectbook).


TWIRE,

I thought my response to Cattitude was fairly conciliatory. I willingly agreed that some of the perception about priests verses other clergy was media driven. I don't condone any abuse of children, by priests, pastors or anyone else. It's all reprehensible.

As for the rest, (celibacy, unmarried priests, etc.) I realize you feel very strongly about this and we're not going to see eye to eye. I'm not going to discuss it any further, especially not given the attitude displayed in this post.

Link Posted: 6/2/2008 3:29:06 AM EST
It doesn't 'read' as conciliatory. I apologize for any misinterpretation, but it 'reads' as a condemnation of celibate priesthood.

Link Posted: 6/2/2008 8:16:36 AM EST
This is not just something that affects the Catholic church. This is a sin that permeates our entire society today. You will find things like this in every denomination. The reason the RC church got so much attention is because they are what the world considers main-stream Christianity.

Some protestants will point the finger and say that is what you get when have "unregenerate" spiritual leadership. While this is probably many times the case, what about when "regenerate" spiritual leadership does the same thing? It all boils down to the qualifications for pastors/elders/bishops. They are laid out clearly in I Timothy 3, and Titus 1 and they are not to be ignored. They are not suggestions, but clear cut qualifications. When a man desires to be in the ministry, he must be put to the test. If he meets these standards, go for it! If he doesn't, he should not be put in a place of leadership. There are other places to serve. If when a man does qualify, and is placed in the ministry and then disqualifies himself, he should be immediately removed from his office of leadership.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 10:02:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/2/2008 10:03:15 AM EST by Bladeswitcher]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
It doesn't 'read' as conciliatory. I apologize for any misinterpretation, but it 'reads' as a condemnation of celibate priesthood.



It was meant to be conciliatory on the pedophile priest issue. The celibate priesthood is a separate issue. I think I stated several times that my views on that topic were merely personal opinion. If you and millions of other Catholics are happy with it, what difference does it make what I think?

I will tell you, though, I thought it was pretty silly when I went through pre-marriage counseling with a Catholic priest.
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 4:29:00 PM EST
I agree. Its a separate issue. But thus far in the post you have described the priesthood as weird, counter to scripture, abnormal heterosexuals, immoral, impractical, unreligious, and silly. So if you don't intend to discuss this issue, why continue to degrade the institution?
Link Posted: 6/2/2008 5:25:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I agree. Its a separate issue. But thus far in the post you have described the priesthood as weird, counter to scripture, abnormal heterosexuals, immoral, impractical, unreligious, and silly. So if you don't intend to discuss this issue, why continue to degrade the institution?




I mean... it is BS you are talking about.


That is his SOP.

-3D
Link Posted: 6/4/2008 3:22:00 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/4/2008 4:10:30 PM EST by Bladeswitcher]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:
I agree. Its a separate issue. But thus far in the post you have described the priesthood as weird, counter to scripture, abnormal heterosexuals, immoral, impractical, unreligious, and silly. So if you don't intend to discuss this issue, why continue to degrade the institution?



Why are you continuing to press for a fight?

If I were discussing this topic with someone I felt was at all receptive, I'd be more than happy to talk about it. Since that's not the case, it's best if we simply let it drop.


Link Posted: 6/4/2008 5:55:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:
Since this topic was brought up in another thread, I'd like to point out some of the facts often overlooked about the Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal.

Hopefully, this can be discussed in a respectful manner, examining the facts without getting the thread locked. Please refrain from commenting without reading the following links.

Check these out:
Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse than Catholic Church

Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?

Released Figures Offer Glimpse into Protestant Sex Abuse Problems

Study by John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Sexual Abuse in Social Context

Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches

I am not using this as a way to shift blame, only to illustrate that priests are not the only people who have abused children. It appears that any profession that allows people close, unsupervised contact with children will attract people with less than good intentions. Better screening needs to be in place.

It's true that the abuses were handled poorly by the Church in many cases. But what organization doesn't have the same "protect our own" mentality. Don't tell me that a wife-beating cop will be turned in by his cop buddies every single time. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

Also, keep in mind that many priests probably revealed their sins in confession, therefore the priest they confessed to was bound by confidentiality NOT to report them. They can only encourage the person to seek help.

These men are sinners, as we all are. Don't judge the entire Catholic Church by a small percentage of sinful members. Instead, pray for these men and their victims.



I believe this is a disingenuous post. You state that you are not attempting to shift blame, and then you do just that.

No reasonable person is going to deny that teachers (both male and female) have taken advantage of underage students and had illicit sexual contact with them.

When the school systems realize that illegal sexual activity has taken place, they act accordingly and the police are notified.

And on top of that, "other organizations" that have "protect our own" mentalities do not claim to be THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH with the only VICAR OF CHRIST who has the authority to speak for God.

The fact of the matter is, the LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic church aided and abetted child molesters. They took priests that they knew to be guilty, and moved them from one location to another. They paid out hush money to keep the scandal quiet.

If they had gone to the police on a case by case basis and cooperated with the prosecution of these perverts, then they would not be getting the criticism they justly deserve.

As it is, it is just another chapter in the book of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 7:19:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By criley:
I believe this is a disingenuous post . . .


Link Posted: 6/5/2008 7:28:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:
I am not using this as a way to shift blame, only to illustrate that priests are not the only people who have abused children.

Alan Colmes!? Is that you!?
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 8:47:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By criley:
I believe this is a disingenuous post. You state that you are not attempting to shift blame, and then you do just that.

No reasonable person is going to deny that teachers (both male and female) have taken advantage of underage students and had illicit sexual contact with them.

When the school systems realize that illegal sexual activity has taken place, they act accordingly and the police are notified.

And on top of that, "other organizations" that have "protect our own" mentalities do not claim to be THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH with the only VICAR OF CHRIST who has the authority to speak for God.

The fact of the matter is, the LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic church aided and abetted child molesters. They took priests that they knew to be guilty, and moved them from one location to another. They paid out hush money to keep the scandal quiet.

If they had gone to the police on a case by case basis and cooperated with the prosecution of these perverts, then they would not be getting the criticism they justly deserve.

As it is, it is just another chapter in the book of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church.


I believe this[/size=3] is a disingenuous post.

Did you read the links? No, obviously.

The point being made is that the problems so often labeled 'Catholic' especially by anti-Catholics such as yourself, are infinitely more broad than are generally portrayed by our friends in the mainstream media, an institution which is clearly intent on the destruction of all religious thought.

You have demontrated over and over that you would have issues with the RCC regardless. It is evident again in this post.

Your post is also inaccurate. The Catholic Church claims to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Although I'm sure that you would admit that we are ALL sinners and fall short of His glory, you can't seem to differentiate between the 'Holy Church' (i.e. the Body of Christ) and the 'sinners' that make up its parts. If you were actually a member of a Church, I don't think you could claim that the congregation was free from fault. That would be blaphemous.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 10:13:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By TWIRE:


Your attempts at spin do not negate the facts as I have stated them:

The LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic Church KNEW about the pervert priests and instead of handing them over to the police for prosecution they MOVED THEM TO NEW AREAS in an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug and to save the organization from the embarrassment it would suffer. That is also why they were willing to dole out hush money.

To maintain that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church should not be criticized for their actions in this scandal is patently absurd.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 4:57:33 PM EST

The LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic Church KNEW about the pervert priests and instead of handing them over to the police for prosecution they MOVED THEM TO NEW AREAS in an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug and to save the organization from the embarrassment it would suffer. That is also why they were willing to dole out hush money.


To me this seems like Obstruction of Justice, then we have harboring a criminal. That is very serious, also would be federal, or even internatinal. Apoligize and turn them over to the appropriate authority.

As for the one and only, the Celtic Church was founded by the Family of Jesus and most likely himself. There are several Churches in India that were founded by Thomas..they all predate the RCC
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 5:06:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By criley:

Originally Posted By TWIRE:


Your attempts at spin do not negate the facts as I have stated them:

The LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic Church KNEW about the pervert priests and instead of handing them over to the police for prosecution they MOVED THEM TO NEW AREAS in an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug and to save the organization from the embarrassment it would suffer. That is also why they were willing to dole out hush money.

To maintain that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church should not be criticized for their actions in this scandal is patently absurd.


Never said that. Your inference that I did, is patently absurd. Very little 'fact,' whole lot of opinion.

Your post went beyond criticism of the leadership and condemned the Church as a whole. Your commentary completely ignored the OP's links, and glossed over the entire point of this thread in a mad dash to fan the flames of contempt (not unusal for your posts). The paragraph above emphasizes your inability to grasp that point, and highlights the malice that you have for Catholicism.
Link Posted: 6/5/2008 8:10:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

Never said that. Your inference that I did, is patently absurd. Very little 'fact,' whole lot of opinion.

Your post went beyond criticism of the leadership and condemned the Church as a whole. Your commentary completely ignored the OP's links, and glossed over the entire point of this thread in a mad dash to fan the flames of contempt (not unusal for your posts). The paragraph above emphasizes your inability to grasp that point, and highlights the malice that you have for Catholicism.


Wrong.

1. We don't need to go read links that point out that some school teachers are also guilty of sexual child abuse. We all know that.

2. The OP attempted to mitigate criticism of the RCC by saying that other organizations would do the same thing that the RCC did in respect to circling the wagons.

3. I correctly pointed out that these other organizations do not claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH whose leader is supposedly the VICAR of Christ who has the authority of God himself.

4. I then pointedly criticized the LEADERSHIP of the RCC for their despicable actions.

Now there is certainly appropriate criticism that could be leveled at those who choose to remain part of such an organization that operates in such manner, but that is not what I did in my post.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 3:36:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheWind:
To me this seems like Obstruction of Justice, then we have harboring a criminal. That is very serious, also would be federal, or even internatinal. Apoligize and turn them over to the appropriate authority.

If you had bothered to read, you would see that not only has this problem been addressed within Catholicism, but that the actions you have describe are not limited to the Catholic Church. Not an excuse, just don't fool yourself into thinking that it was solely a Catholic practice. You never hear about the youth pastor at the Podunk Church of Faith in BFE getting dismissed for inappropriate actions? Why? Small potatoes, local coverup, no money for the lawyers. There's a lot of dirt under the rugs in lots of places. It is sad and criminal.



As for the one and only, the Celtic Church was founded by the Family of Jesus and most likely himself. There are several Churches in India that were founded by Thomas..they all predate the RCC

Not exactly true.

Most references I've seen date the Celtic Church to the 6th century. You may be referencing the Coptic church (St. Andrew) which is a first or second century church. The Syriac Christians (St. Thomas, India) do date to the first century. I would agree to the historical truth of that, but there is a snag. The significance of handing on the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter cannot be overstated. The reference to the 'keys' in the Old Testament is of monumental significance. No keys were given to St. Thomas or to St. Andrew. A simple perusal of the New Testament will clearly indicate the primacy of Peter among the apostles and his role in the early church.

So although the Coptic and Syriac churches came into existence in the same time frame as the Catholic, it is our belief that Peter was charged with the headship of Christ's Church. Obviously, not all agree.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 4:04:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/6/2008 4:10:16 AM EST by Bladeswitcher]

Originally Posted By TWIRE:

The significance of handing on the keys to the kingdom to St. Peter cannot be overstated. The reference to the 'keys' in the Old Testament is of monumental significance. . . .


I'm genuinely interested in this statement about keys in the old testament. I did a search and found only eight references to keys in the entire Bible, only two of them in the old testament. I assume the monumental significance of old testament keys is the singular verse in Isaiah which is referenced in Revelation, right? This refers to Christ. I'm guessing that you assume that since Jesus told Peter he was giving him the keys that represents a passing of the mantel to Peter, right? Is this view tempered at all by the fact that exactly four verses after this Jesus calls Peter "Satan" and scolds him for his disbelief?

Isn't "keys" really just a reference to the understanding that unlocks the scriptures and provides entrance into "the kingdom"? As Jesus said in Luke 11, keys are "keys of knowledge." Surely Paul, too, had these same keys since he wrote half the new testament and did more than any other writer to expound on Jesus ministry. He certainly did more unlocking than Peter did in his writings.

Yes, I realize that there are no verses showing Jesus passing the keys to Paul, but we're really not talking about natural keys, are we? Wouldn't it be true that anyone with the understanding to unlock the scriptures could also be said to have "the keys"?

Also, I note that you are, in essence, equating "house of David" with "heaven." Is that correct?

I'm not challenging you. I'm just asking . . .



Judg.3:25 — And they tarried till they were ashamed: and, behold, he opened not the doors of the parlour; therefore they took a key, and opened them: and, behold, their lord was fallen down dead on the earth.

Isa.22:22 — And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Matt.16:19 — And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Luke.11:52 — Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

Rev.1:18 — I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Rev.3:7 — And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

Rev.9:1 — And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

Rev.20:1 — And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 4:11:08 AM EST
The RCC doesn't have a monopoly on sex abuse in church.

There are just as many cases of protestant ministers diddling little kids.


They all need to be buried in the manure pit.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 4:37:37 AM EST
If you want to discuss the significance of the keys,and all that, I'm all for it, but maybe in a different thread?

Anyway, I'm probably going to regret this, but I feel the need to address criley's comments myself:

I believe this is a disingenuous post. You state that you are not attempting to shift blame, and then you do just that.


And exactly who did I blame?

The point of my post was not to say “Look, everyone else is doing to too, so it’s really not so bad.” My point was to educate people on some truths about sex abuse in general among adults that we should be able to trust with our kids.

Mainly, I was trying to illustrate the following:
• The number of priests actually accused of abuse is much less than many people think, between 3% and 6%.
• Sexual abuse of children does happen in other venues at higher rates –so priests should not be “singled out”. That was the point of the links regarding teachers. The 6% of priests would be really high if the rate among teacher was only, say 0.5%. It give a point of reference.
• To show that celibacy of priests is not the cause of sexual abuse because sex abuse is seen in people who are not celibate.


No reasonable person is going to deny that teachers (both male and female) have taken advantage of underage students and had illicit sexual contact with them.


Funny, you don’t hear many people saying to keep your kids out of school because of all the child-raping teachers.


When the school systems realize that illegal sexual activity has taken place, they act accordingly and the police are notified.


According to the Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice I posted, this DID occur in 25% of the cases. I will admit that this number is WAY too low, but you would have us believe that this NEVER happened. In fact, at least 384 priests have had criminal charges against them.


And on top of that, "other organizations" that have "protect our own" mentalities do not claim to be THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH with the only VICAR OF CHRIST who has the authority to speak for God.


The Catholic Church, just like any other organization is made up of sinful men and women. No one of us is perfect or without sin, not even our beloved Pope.


The fact of the matter is, the LEADERSHIP of the Roman Catholic church aided and abetted child molesters. They took priests that they knew to be guilty, and moved them from one location to another. They paid out hush money to keep the scandal quiet.

...MOVED THEM TO NEW AREAS in an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug and to save the organization from the embarrassment it would suffer.


149 of the total 4,392 priests who had been accused at the time of the study had been moved. I agree that this is 149 times too many, but you would have us believe it happened every single time. These were the cases that got to most media attention.


If they had gone to the police on a case by case basis and cooperated with the prosecution of these perverts, then they would not be getting the criticism they justly deserve.


No, more than likely, the anti-Catholics would just find some other half-truth to criticize.


To maintain that the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church should not be criticized for their actions in this scandal is patently absurd.


I have never said any such thing. I actually said “It's true that the abuses were handled poorly by the Church in many cases.” My point is that you criticize as though appropriate actions were never taken.


As it is, it is just another chapter in the book of the atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church.


Much of which has been grossly exaggerated to vilify the entire Church, all of her teachings and all of her members.


Now there is certainly appropriate criticism that could be leveled at those who choose to remain part of such an organization that operates in such manner, but that is not what I did in my post.


If we didn't remain part of any organization that includes the leadership of individuals who have sinned, done despicable things, abused those weaker than themselves, etc. - what country would we live in? What church would we belong to? These indiscretions don't change the teachings of the Church, her doctrines or all the good she has done for the world.

Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7) Good advice for all of us, I think.

Link Posted: 6/6/2008 7:42:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:
The point of my post was not to say “Look, everyone else is doing to too, so it’s really not so bad.” My point was to educate people on some truths about sex abuse in general among adults that we should be able to trust with our kids.



Sexual abuse of children does happen in other venues at higher rates –so priests should not be “singled out”. That was the point of the links regarding teachers. The 6% of priests would be really high if the rate among teacher was only, say 0.5%. It give a point of reference.


You did just exactly what I said you did. You compared the RCC with schools to try and say "See, we are not so bad."



If we didn't remain part of any organization that includes the leadership of individuals who have sinned, done despicable things, abused those weaker than themselves, etc. - what country would we live in? What church would we belong to? These indiscretions don't change the teachings of the Church, her doctrines or all the good she has done for the world.


Sorry but that doesn't fly. The discussion is not about requiring sinless leaders. We are talking specifically about leaders who aided and abetted child molesters on an organizational level.


Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John 8:7) Good advice for all of us, I think.


You have taken the verse completely out if its context.

No one is talking about throwing rocks. We are discussing an organization that will go to extreme lengths to cover up illegalities (without regard for its own children).
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 10:51:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By criley:

Sorry but that doesn't fly. <snip>



As long as you have the slightest nub to hang your hate on, nothing will be sufficient for you.
Link Posted: 6/6/2008 11:19:25 AM EST

Most references I've seen date the Celtic Church to the 6th century


My references are that it occured while Jesus was still alive. In 625CE at Whitby, the Celtic Church was absorbed into the RCC system. But then I doibt if you would believe that Mary was his wife and they had kids, as it would collapse the RCC. But you have your beliefs. I have mine, one is right...might be me?

Twire, I just want to know what the sentences are for all the priests that have been molesting children? I know of one that is still in a congregation. Turn them and the evidence over to the government.

Link Posted: 6/6/2008 7:02:01 PM EST
The accusation is easy to make....and most churches will just settle as an attempt at damage control...you'll find large companies do this as well. This is to keep the Church or companies name out of the media...doesn't always work that way.

I say those who think that every single accusation against the Catholic church have merit...should read this... www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7065
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 6:12:07 AM EST
Not every single accusation has merit, but there are many that do. As for others they do it they should go to jail....wait they did, the teachers that did had trials and went to jail. These are the points I am making.
1-Is it not true that the RCChid and tried to take care of the priests themselves?
2-Was the RCC forthright with the police and turned over evidence.
3-Or did they pay off the victims? Hide th evidence? That is a matter form the highest level in the RCC, and it is criminal.
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 6:20:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/7/2008 6:23:05 AM EST by Bladeswitcher]
I wonder what a prophet -- like those who appeared in the old testament to prophesy against the religious leaders of the time -- would say about the situation? Somehow, I doubt he would say, "Oh well, teachers and protestants do it too."
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:36:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
I wonder what a prophet -- like those who appeared in the old testament to prophesy against the religious leaders of the time -- would say about the situation? Somehow, I doubt he would say, "Oh well, teachers and protestants do it too."


Who said "Oh well"??????

Nice way to put words into people's mouths. No one here has said that, in that way.

What I said was that priests on the whole, or the Catholic Church on the whole, shouldn't be condemned for the reprehensible actions of a relative few.

Not one person has said they don't deserve punishment if caught & convicted. I did, in fact, point out that the Church has taken action to improve the safety of children, in a number of ways. That includes better screening of candidates for priesthood, as well as programs at the parish level to protect them from all adults.

My point, for the last time, for anyone who actually wants to pay attention, is that there is nothing specifically about priests that makes them more likely than any other adult who works with children to abuse them. This was in response to specific anti-Catholic comment about child-raping priests made in a specific thread. If you don't know how prevalent this sort of abuse is in society, or how prevalent it actually is within the Church, you have no way of determining how bad the problem in the Church really is.

If you think that's in any way excusing the behavior or saying "Oh well" then nothing else I can say will change your minds. And to that, I do say "Oh well".
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 7:56:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cattitude:

Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
I wonder what a prophet -- like those who appeared in the old testament to prophesy against the religious leaders of the time -- would say about the situation? Somehow, I doubt he would say, "Oh well, teachers and protestants do it too."


Who said "Oh well"??????

Nice way to put words into people's mouths. No one here has said that, in that way. . . .


OK. Have it your way:

I wonder what a prophet -- like those who appeared in the old testament to prophesy against the religious leaders of the time -- would say about the situation? Somehow, I doubt he would say, "Teachers and protestants do it too."
Link Posted: 6/7/2008 8:45:34 AM EST
Iwould think that an Old School PRophet would....Let's see...Sword of G*d? maybe stoning? Pillar of Salt? Except for Daniel and Jesus, most would be condemningthem to death,especialy since they were dedicated to G*d.
Link Posted: 6/9/2008 6:44:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/9/2008 6:44:34 AM EST by HardShell]
OP's request
Top Top