Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-02-2015, 10:02 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 08:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 09:14 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Of course, but it's all the priests, worldwide, over a large time period like that. Not to mention, it's still much lower than the general populace, and certainly nearly every other organization of this size. Hell the public school systems have numbers of abuse cases around three times that number in half the time, yet no one bats an eye.

I have written an article, parts of which put the extent of of Catholic priest pedophilia in context...

In more recent times, the American media has exposed priest offenders in nearly every state of the USA. In February 2004, the final reports of two surveys commissioned by the US bishops (one must give them credit for doing this) were released. These surveys were conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Pries...andal.htm) and by the National Review Board (http://old.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm).

Both reports looked at the issue of youth sexual abuse among Catholic clergy in the USA since the 1950s.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred clergy perpetrators had been reported by dioceses since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate, and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

The National Review Board report placed blame for the widespread scandals directly on the bishops’ negligence. One of its concluding recommendations was that
“Dioceses and orders should report all allegations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities, regardless of the circumstances, or the age or perceived credibility of the accuser” (pg.144.)

In 2009, in Ireland, a document known as the “Ryan report” (http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) was released following a lengthy investigation of residential “Reformatory and Industrial Schools” operated by the Catholic Church and run mainly by the Christian Brothers. Justice Sean Ryan, a High Court judge, wrote the five-volume report based on nine years’ worth of interviews of victims, teachers, and others. It concluded that sexual abuse was “endemic” in the boys’ institutions and occasional in girls’ institutions, and that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential. The sexual abuse of boys ranged from improper touching and fondling, to rape with violence. Perpetrators were able to operate undetected for long periods in these institutions. The Irish Times called the report

“a devastating indictment of Church and State authorities” and
“the map of an Irish hell” and reported that
“The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenseless children—over eight hundred known abusers in over two hundred Catholic institutions during a period of thirty-five years—should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.”

Please read the above quote again.

The Murphy Report, (http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504) headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, is the result of a public inquiry commissioned by the Irish government to investigate the way in which the church dealt with allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests over the period 1975 to 2004 in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The original brief was to report in eighteen months, but such was the volume of evidence and allegations concerning the abusive behavior of a sample batch of forty-six priests, who between them had allegedly abused thousands (!) of children, that time extensions had to be allowed. The commission made no attempt to establish whether sexual abuse actually took place, but examined the manner in which church and state authorities dealt with complaints. The 720-page report was publicly released in 2009. It stated that there was

“no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up” from January 1975 to May 2004.

The report recognized in no uncertain terms that the church itself, as controlled by the Vatican, had protected its priests and its assets:

“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.”

The report noted that church leaders were well aware of the risk to children; as early as 1987, they took out insurance policies to cover the legal costs of future compensation claims.

Richard Sipe is a retired American Roman Catholic priest involved in full-time research and consultation about the sexual practices of Roman Catholic clergy (http://www.awrsipe.com, http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_...2005.htm). He’s authored six books on the subject, and has served as a respected consultant and expert witness in over two hundred cases involving sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy. He claimed, in 2005, that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Surely the existence of any known child abusers still working as Catholic priests is unacceptable.

The statistics in countries in the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, Africa and South America are not as well documented as yet, but there are similar horrific stories of abuse. The figures in the developed world will one day pale in comparison to the number in the developing world, such as in Latin America and Africa, where large-scale official investigations into Catholic priests’ behavior are yet to be conducted. (http://clericalabusewatch.blogspot.com.a...h-in.html, http://www.themediaproject.org/article/t...page=0,0). These countries (not prisons!) have been the dumping grounds for repeat priest offenders. Some of these priests live with women or men, but that’s no guarantee that the sex with children has stopped.

Whether the percentage of Catholic priests who abuse children and youths is much greater than for other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders (such as gurus, imams, ministers, pastors or rabbis) is unclear, as I can find no reliable data about these groups. It’s also difficult to find consistent reliable statistics as to what percentage of adult males in the general population sexually abuse children.

Up until recent years some Catholic priests have taken advantage of freer access to children than the average adult man, because they used to enjoy a position of authority and trust. Thus the number of abused children per offending priest is probably larger than for the average secular molester.

It’s possible that some Catholic priests probably chose their “calling,” or remained in the priesthood, because of the access it gave them to defenseless children. If you were a child molester, there was no better safe haven in which to hide than the priestly garb of the RC church.

The statistics from Ireland and the United States suggest that homosexual activity is grossly over-represented in the Catholic clergy as compared to the general population, because roughly 80% of the victims were boys, whereas victims of secular perpetrators are more likely to be girls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse). In fact estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...f-God.htm, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...5550.html, http://americamagazine.org/issue/387/art...l-priest).

There’s nothing illegal or immoral about being homosexual, and no-one should jump to the erroneous conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Yet these figures may surprise some conservative Catholics, and it’s ironic that the Vatican so vehemently condemns homosexual behavior (http://dot429.com/articles/1305-vatican-...ex-unions) when their own ranks are so stacked with male homosexuals.

Is it possible that in the past, the Catholic priesthood, a brotherhood of men who couldn’t marry, yet were still respected members of society not suspected of being gay, was an attractive option for young homosexual men unwilling to publically admit their sexual inclination?

What made, and makes, so many of them abuse children is unclear. Perhaps they couldn’t unashamedly address their sexuality with other adults, and found themselves isolated. Children became an easy target because they were vulnerable, and explanations weren’t necessary.

Irrespective of the possible reasons, there are no excuses, and the statistics are shocking! Thousands of heartless, sadistic, Catholic priests gratified themselves at the expense of innocent children, usually pre pubescent boys who weren’t confident or physically strong enough to resist their advances.

Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 09:27 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  this thread has gone rather astray from the tone of the OP.

Indeed. Drinking Beverage

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like evenheathen's post
28-02-2015, 10:04 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 08:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have written an article, parts of which put the extent of of Catholic priest pedophilia in context...

In more recent times, the American media has exposed priest offenders in nearly every state of the USA. In February 2004, the final reports of two surveys commissioned by the US bishops (one must give them credit for doing this) were released. These surveys were conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Pries...andal.htm) and by the National Review Board (http://old.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm).

Both reports looked at the issue of youth sexual abuse among Catholic clergy in the USA since the 1950s.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred clergy perpetrators had been reported by dioceses since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate, and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

The National Review Board report placed blame for the widespread scandals directly on the bishops’ negligence. One of its concluding recommendations was that
“Dioceses and orders should report all allegations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities, regardless of the circumstances, or the age or perceived credibility of the accuser” (pg.144.)

In 2009, in Ireland, a document known as the “Ryan report” (http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) was released following a lengthy investigation of residential “Reformatory and Industrial Schools” operated by the Catholic Church and run mainly by the Christian Brothers. Justice Sean Ryan, a High Court judge, wrote the five-volume report based on nine years’ worth of interviews of victims, teachers, and others. It concluded that sexual abuse was “endemic” in the boys’ institutions and occasional in girls’ institutions, and that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential. The sexual abuse of boys ranged from improper touching and fondling, to rape with violence. Perpetrators were able to operate undetected for long periods in these institutions. The Irish Times called the report

“a devastating indictment of Church and State authorities” and
“the map of an Irish hell” and reported that
“The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenseless children—over eight hundred known abusers in over two hundred Catholic institutions during a period of thirty-five years—should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.”

Please read the above quote again.

The Murphy Report, (http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504) headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, is the result of a public inquiry commissioned by the Irish government to investigate the way in which the church dealt with allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests over the period 1975 to 2004 in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The original brief was to report in eighteen months, but such was the volume of evidence and allegations concerning the abusive behavior of a sample batch of forty-six priests, who between them had allegedly abused thousands (!) of children, that time extensions had to be allowed. The commission made no attempt to establish whether sexual abuse actually took place, but examined the manner in which church and state authorities dealt with complaints. The 720-page report was publicly released in 2009. It stated that there was

“no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up” from January 1975 to May 2004.

The report recognized in no uncertain terms that the church itself, as controlled by the Vatican, had protected its priests and its assets:

“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.”

The report noted that church leaders were well aware of the risk to children; as early as 1987, they took out insurance policies to cover the legal costs of future compensation claims.

Richard Sipe is a retired American Roman Catholic priest involved in full-time research and consultation about the sexual practices of Roman Catholic clergy (http://www.awrsipe.com, http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_...2005.htm). He’s authored six books on the subject, and has served as a respected consultant and expert witness in over two hundred cases involving sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy. He claimed, in 2005, that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Surely the existence of any known child abusers still working as Catholic priests is unacceptable.

The statistics in countries in the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, Africa and South America are not as well documented as yet, but there are similar horrific stories of abuse. The figures in the developed world will one day pale in comparison to the number in the developing world, such as in Latin America and Africa, where large-scale official investigations into Catholic priests’ behavior are yet to be conducted. (http://clericalabusewatch.blogspot.com.a...h-in.html, http://www.themediaproject.org/article/t...page=0,0). These countries (not prisons!) have been the dumping grounds for repeat priest offenders. Some of these priests live with women or men, but that’s no guarantee that the sex with children has stopped.

Whether the percentage of Catholic priests who abuse children and youths is much greater than for other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders (such as gurus, imams, ministers, pastors or rabbis) is unclear, as I can find no reliable data about these groups. It’s also difficult to find consistent reliable statistics as to what percentage of adult males in the general population sexually abuse children.

Up until recent years some Catholic priests have taken advantage of freer access to children than the average adult man, because they used to enjoy a position of authority and trust. Thus the number of abused children per offending priest is probably larger than for the average secular molester.

It’s possible that some Catholic priests probably chose their “calling,” or remained in the priesthood, because of the access it gave them to defenseless children. If you were a child molester, there was no better safe haven in which to hide than the priestly garb of the RC church.

The statistics from Ireland and the United States suggest that homosexual activity is grossly over-represented in the Catholic clergy as compared to the general population, because roughly 80% of the victims were boys, whereas victims of secular perpetrators are more likely to be girls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse). In fact estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...f-God.htm, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...5550.html, http://americamagazine.org/issue/387/art...l-priest).

There’s nothing illegal or immoral about being homosexual, and no-one should jump to the erroneous conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Yet these figures may surprise some conservative Catholics, and it’s ironic that the Vatican so vehemently condemns homosexual behavior (http://dot429.com/articles/1305-vatican-...ex-unions) when their own ranks are so stacked with male homosexuals.

Is it possible that in the past, the Catholic priesthood, a brotherhood of men who couldn’t marry, yet were still respected members of society not suspected of being gay, was an attractive option for young homosexual men unwilling to publically admit their sexual inclination?

What made, and makes, so many of them abuse children is unclear. Perhaps they couldn’t unashamedly address their sexuality with other adults, and found themselves isolated. Children became an easy target because they were vulnerable, and explanations weren’t necessary.

Irrespective of the possible reasons, there are no excuses, and the statistics are shocking! Thousands of heartless, sadistic, Catholic priests gratified themselves at the expense of innocent children, usually pre pubescent boys who weren’t confident or physically strong enough to resist their advances.

Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.

No video ?
Still waiting for 10 bishops that think Vatican 2 was inauthentic.
You are not a Catholic.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 10:08 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 10:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.

No video ?
Still waiting for 10 bishops that think Vatican 2 was inauthentic.
You are not a Catholic.

I think I've hit intellectual bedrock here people. Even when I address all his points, he just asserts I respond to the same exact points, all the while no responding to any of my points, and regurgitating the same "Ur not a Catholic" rhetoric.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 10:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.

No video ?
Still waiting for 10 bishops that think Vatican 2 was inauthentic.
You are not a Catholic.

My ex used to whine about Vatican II and how they were ruining 'her' church. She didn't get it, just like PP doesn't.

It's wasn't her church and it isn't PP's - it's their church, the ones who run it, the old boys' network.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
28-02-2015, 10:12 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 02:03 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 03:18 AM)DLJ Wrote:  @PP

Thanks for your review of Vatican II.

I wish you'd put it in spoilers because I haven't seen Vatican I yet.

However, based on that 4 point review, can I assume that Vatican I was:

1. Anti-unity / in favour of disunity?
2. Anti-freedom?
3. Totalitarian?
4. Procedurally compliant?

And can I also deduce from this that you are too?

Consider If so, I have a few follow-up questions I'd like to ask.

Quote:1. Anti-unity / in favour of disunity?

It was 'for' unity within the Church, however, it was anti-unity when it came to accepting or tolerating heresies or heathen religions, yes.

Quote:2. Anti-freedom?

Depends on what you see as "freedom." I pretty much only see it as a buzzword, used primarily in political propaganda, that means whatever the person who's using it wants it to mean.

Quote:3. Totalitarian?

"Authoritarian" is actually the correct descriptor.

Quote:4. Procedurally compliant?

Yup.

Quote:And can I also deduce from this that you are too?

Pretty much, yes.

Thank you for the reply.

As an aside, I hope you stick around for a while. I've learned a few new things since your arrival.

So my follow-up questions...

We are in agreement on point 4. Instructing people regarding compliance / compatibility to Principles, Policies and Processes (based on up-to-date Standards and Frameworks) is, after all, how I earn a crust.

Totalitarianism is always Authoritarian but Authoritarian is not always Totalitarian, so I take your point. However, as you described it in point 3., it seems obvious that both words apply in this case.

For points 1. 2. and 3. there is a connection between them so I will treat them as a whole:
Your original points, for reference:
(28-02-2015 02:24 AM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ...
It's wrong because:
1) It teaches ecumenism, which goes against previous Church teaching.
2) It teaches that religious freedom is an inalienable right granted by God, which goes against previous Church teaching.
3) It teaches that the government has no right to enforce religion in their laws, which contradicts previous Church teaching.
4) It wasn't called, or preformed, in accordance to the regulations of every other Council that's been passed before Vatican 2, in other words, it was called and preformed illegally.
...

Heresy, freedom to follow other doctrines is not permissible, from your perspective. The conclusion I draw is that you want to see your version of things imposed on everyone else in an authoritarian manner (I'd say also totalitarian) as it used to be when the RCC had real political power.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position. Thanks.

In other words, this 'unity' is the same as e.g. the Islamic State's goal of having unity by in some way eradicating other doctrines, disallowing people's freedom to believe 'wrong' beliefs.

Human history is littered with examples of failed authoritarian / totalitarianism regimes:
Hussein's Iraq
Stalin's Russia
Pol Pot's Cambodia
Naziism
Medieval Europe (prior to the Magna Carta)
etc. etc.

So, moving away from 'is' and on to 'ought'...
a) What is the most efficient and effective way of achieving these goals?
b) What process would advocate to return to your desired state?
c) Will it involve bloodshed (again) e.g. Rwanda?
d) What would you consider to be acceptable in terms of casualties?

Thank you, in advance.

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
28-02-2015, 10:20 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:04 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 09:27 PM)LaramieHirsch Wrote:  this thread has gone rather astray from the tone of the OP.

Indeed. Drinking Beverage

Your thread, bro. Tell us if you want it back on track and we (some of us, perhaps) will oblige.

Cos we like you and stuff (a little bit).

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
28-02-2015, 10:25 PM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2015 11:58 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:08 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 10:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No video ?
Still waiting for 10 bishops that think Vatican 2 was inauthentic.
You are not a Catholic.

I think I've hit intellectual bedrock here people. Even when I address all his points, he just asserts I respond to the same exact points, all the while no responding to any of my points, and regurgitating the same "Ur not a Catholic" rhetoric.

You haven't even begun to address ANY point made here. You have your impotent little "retorts". That is all. No substance, no learing, no real ability to engage on the content. ALl you could do is say "watch the video", and couldn't even discuss the points in your words. OF COURSE you're complaining here, ... trying to deflect from you violent outbursts and total lack of education on any salient point. Are you SO desperate, having been banned everywhere else you NEED to do this retarded Trad nonsense on an atheist forum. You can't even prove Jesus existed, much less demonstrate that there is a deity who started a "church" When (only one) of the gospels says "Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (which the RCC uses to justify itself), in the time of Jesus, there was no such thing as "church" so he could never have said that. The RCC is built on lies and falsehoods, repeated ad nauseam over the centuries. Originally Rome had no primacy of place, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome was retroactively invented. If you go back through this thread, since your unfortunate appearance, despite your false claim, basically you have made no adequate response to any and ALL points made. You have made NO points at all. You have absolutely NO education in your cult. You didn't even know how to apply the 3 conditions in your Catechism for Mortal Sin. You could maybe go back, and start at about 2nd Grade religion class, and actually learn something. You are not even worth talking to, you violent insane bigoted homophobe, who claims to be a member of a church he cannot possibly be in communion with.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-02-2015, 11:36 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 08:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have written an article, parts of which put the extent of of Catholic priest pedophilia in context...

In more recent times, the American media has exposed priest offenders in nearly every state of the USA. In February 2004, the final reports of two surveys commissioned by the US bishops (one must give them credit for doing this) were released. These surveys were conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Pries...andal.htm) and by the National Review Board (http://old.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm).

Both reports looked at the issue of youth sexual abuse among Catholic clergy in the USA since the 1950s.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred clergy perpetrators had been reported by dioceses since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate, and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

The National Review Board report placed blame for the widespread scandals directly on the bishops’ negligence. One of its concluding recommendations was that
“Dioceses and orders should report all allegations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities, regardless of the circumstances, or the age or perceived credibility of the accuser” (pg.144.)

In 2009, in Ireland, a document known as the “Ryan report” (http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) was released following a lengthy investigation of residential “Reformatory and Industrial Schools” operated by the Catholic Church and run mainly by the Christian Brothers. Justice Sean Ryan, a High Court judge, wrote the five-volume report based on nine years’ worth of interviews of victims, teachers, and others. It concluded that sexual abuse was “endemic” in the boys’ institutions and occasional in girls’ institutions, and that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential. The sexual abuse of boys ranged from improper touching and fondling, to rape with violence. Perpetrators were able to operate undetected for long periods in these institutions. The Irish Times called the report

“a devastating indictment of Church and State authorities” and
“the map of an Irish hell” and reported that
“The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenseless children—over eight hundred known abusers in over two hundred Catholic institutions during a period of thirty-five years—should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.”

Please read the above quote again.

The Murphy Report, (http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504) headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, is the result of a public inquiry commissioned by the Irish government to investigate the way in which the church dealt with allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests over the period 1975 to 2004 in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The original brief was to report in eighteen months, but such was the volume of evidence and allegations concerning the abusive behavior of a sample batch of forty-six priests, who between them had allegedly abused thousands (!) of children, that time extensions had to be allowed. The commission made no attempt to establish whether sexual abuse actually took place, but examined the manner in which church and state authorities dealt with complaints. The 720-page report was publicly released in 2009. It stated that there was

“no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up” from January 1975 to May 2004.

The report recognized in no uncertain terms that the church itself, as controlled by the Vatican, had protected its priests and its assets:

“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.”

The report noted that church leaders were well aware of the risk to children; as early as 1987, they took out insurance policies to cover the legal costs of future compensation claims.

Richard Sipe is a retired American Roman Catholic priest involved in full-time research and consultation about the sexual practices of Roman Catholic clergy (http://www.awrsipe.com, http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_...2005.htm). He’s authored six books on the subject, and has served as a respected consultant and expert witness in over two hundred cases involving sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy. He claimed, in 2005, that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Surely the existence of any known child abusers still working as Catholic priests is unacceptable.

The statistics in countries in the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, Africa and South America are not as well documented as yet, but there are similar horrific stories of abuse. The figures in the developed world will one day pale in comparison to the number in the developing world, such as in Latin America and Africa, where large-scale official investigations into Catholic priests’ behavior are yet to be conducted. (http://clericalabusewatch.blogspot.com.a...h-in.html, http://www.themediaproject.org/article/t...page=0,0). These countries (not prisons!) have been the dumping grounds for repeat priest offenders. Some of these priests live with women or men, but that’s no guarantee that the sex with children has stopped.

Whether the percentage of Catholic priests who abuse children and youths is much greater than for other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders (such as gurus, imams, ministers, pastors or rabbis) is unclear, as I can find no reliable data about these groups. It’s also difficult to find consistent reliable statistics as to what percentage of adult males in the general population sexually abuse children.

Up until recent years some Catholic priests have taken advantage of freer access to children than the average adult man, because they used to enjoy a position of authority and trust. Thus the number of abused children per offending priest is probably larger than for the average secular molester.

It’s possible that some Catholic priests probably chose their “calling,” or remained in the priesthood, because of the access it gave them to defenseless children. If you were a child molester, there was no better safe haven in which to hide than the priestly garb of the RC church.

The statistics from Ireland and the United States suggest that homosexual activity is grossly over-represented in the Catholic clergy as compared to the general population, because roughly 80% of the victims were boys, whereas victims of secular perpetrators are more likely to be girls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse). In fact estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...f-God.htm, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...5550.html, http://americamagazine.org/issue/387/art...l-priest).

There’s nothing illegal or immoral about being homosexual, and no-one should jump to the erroneous conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Yet these figures may surprise some conservative Catholics, and it’s ironic that the Vatican so vehemently condemns homosexual behavior (http://dot429.com/articles/1305-vatican-...ex-unions) when their own ranks are so stacked with male homosexuals.

Is it possible that in the past, the Catholic priesthood, a brotherhood of men who couldn’t marry, yet were still respected members of society not suspected of being gay, was an attractive option for young homosexual men unwilling to publically admit their sexual inclination?

What made, and makes, so many of them abuse children is unclear. Perhaps they couldn’t unashamedly address their sexuality with other adults, and found themselves isolated. Children became an easy target because they were vulnerable, and explanations weren’t necessary.

Irrespective of the possible reasons, there are no excuses, and the statistics are shocking! Thousands of heartless, sadistic, Catholic priests gratified themselves at the expense of innocent children, usually pre pubescent boys who weren’t confident or physically strong enough to resist their advances.

Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 11:38 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(28-02-2015 10:02 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(28-02-2015 08:55 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have written an article, parts of which put the extent of of Catholic priest pedophilia in context...

In more recent times, the American media has exposed priest offenders in nearly every state of the USA. In February 2004, the final reports of two surveys commissioned by the US bishops (one must give them credit for doing this) were released. These surveys were conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York (http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Pries...andal.htm) and by the National Review Board (http://old.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm).

Both reports looked at the issue of youth sexual abuse among Catholic clergy in the USA since the 1950s.

The John Jay survey revealed that almost forty-five hundred clergy perpetrators had been reported by dioceses since 1950, 4.3 percent of those actively working as priests in the period, and that at least ten thousand known victims had made plausible allegations against priests. The authors made the point that these figures were almost certainly an underestimate, and that the church would face many more allegations in the years to come. Most victims were aged eleven to fourteen and eighty-one percent were boys. Seventy-six percent of the allegations made against priests had never been reported to law enforcement authorities.

The National Review Board report placed blame for the widespread scandals directly on the bishops’ negligence. One of its concluding recommendations was that
“Dioceses and orders should report all allegations of sexual abuse to the civil authorities, regardless of the circumstances, or the age or perceived credibility of the accuser” (pg.144.)

In 2009, in Ireland, a document known as the “Ryan report” (http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) was released following a lengthy investigation of residential “Reformatory and Industrial Schools” operated by the Catholic Church and run mainly by the Christian Brothers. Justice Sean Ryan, a High Court judge, wrote the five-volume report based on nine years’ worth of interviews of victims, teachers, and others. It concluded that sexual abuse was “endemic” in the boys’ institutions and occasional in girls’ institutions, and that the entire system treated children more like prison inmates and slaves than people with legal rights and human potential. The sexual abuse of boys ranged from improper touching and fondling, to rape with violence. Perpetrators were able to operate undetected for long periods in these institutions. The Irish Times called the report

“a devastating indictment of Church and State authorities” and
“the map of an Irish hell” and reported that
“The sheer scale and longevity of the torment inflected on defenseless children—over eight hundred known abusers in over two hundred Catholic institutions during a period of thirty-five years—should alone make it clear that it was not accidental or opportunistic but systematic. Abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system.”

Please read the above quote again.

The Murphy Report, (http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504) headed by Judge Yvonne Murphy, is the result of a public inquiry commissioned by the Irish government to investigate the way in which the church dealt with allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests over the period 1975 to 2004 in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The original brief was to report in eighteen months, but such was the volume of evidence and allegations concerning the abusive behavior of a sample batch of forty-six priests, who between them had allegedly abused thousands (!) of children, that time extensions had to be allowed. The commission made no attempt to establish whether sexual abuse actually took place, but examined the manner in which church and state authorities dealt with complaints. The 720-page report was publicly released in 2009. It stated that there was

“no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up” from January 1975 to May 2004.

The report recognized in no uncertain terms that the church itself, as controlled by the Vatican, had protected its priests and its assets:

“the Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid-1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.”

The report noted that church leaders were well aware of the risk to children; as early as 1987, they took out insurance policies to cover the legal costs of future compensation claims.

Richard Sipe is a retired American Roman Catholic priest involved in full-time research and consultation about the sexual practices of Roman Catholic clergy (http://www.awrsipe.com, http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_...2005.htm). He’s authored six books on the subject, and has served as a respected consultant and expert witness in over two hundred cases involving sexual abuse of minors by Roman Catholic clergy. He claimed, in 2005, that

“Dioceses throughout the United States are now recording an average of 7 to 9 percent priest abusers of minors in their records.” (http://www.richardsipe.com/Dialogue/Dial...–23.html).

Surely the existence of any known child abusers still working as Catholic priests is unacceptable.

The statistics in countries in the rest of Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, Africa and South America are not as well documented as yet, but there are similar horrific stories of abuse. The figures in the developed world will one day pale in comparison to the number in the developing world, such as in Latin America and Africa, where large-scale official investigations into Catholic priests’ behavior are yet to be conducted. (http://clericalabusewatch.blogspot.com.a...h-in.html, http://www.themediaproject.org/article/t...page=0,0). These countries (not prisons!) have been the dumping grounds for repeat priest offenders. Some of these priests live with women or men, but that’s no guarantee that the sex with children has stopped.

Whether the percentage of Catholic priests who abuse children and youths is much greater than for other Christian and non-Christian religious leaders (such as gurus, imams, ministers, pastors or rabbis) is unclear, as I can find no reliable data about these groups. It’s also difficult to find consistent reliable statistics as to what percentage of adult males in the general population sexually abuse children.

Up until recent years some Catholic priests have taken advantage of freer access to children than the average adult man, because they used to enjoy a position of authority and trust. Thus the number of abused children per offending priest is probably larger than for the average secular molester.

It’s possible that some Catholic priests probably chose their “calling,” or remained in the priesthood, because of the access it gave them to defenseless children. If you were a child molester, there was no better safe haven in which to hide than the priestly garb of the RC church.

The statistics from Ireland and the United States suggest that homosexual activity is grossly over-represented in the Catholic clergy as compared to the general population, because roughly 80% of the victims were boys, whereas victims of secular perpetrators are more likely to be girls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse). In fact estimates of the rate of homosexuality amongst Catholic American priests range from 23% to over 50% (http://www.latrompette.net/post/A-e005-R...f-God.htm, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26...5550.html, http://americamagazine.org/issue/387/art...l-priest).

There’s nothing illegal or immoral about being homosexual, and no-one should jump to the erroneous conclusion that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles. Yet these figures may surprise some conservative Catholics, and it’s ironic that the Vatican so vehemently condemns homosexual behavior (http://dot429.com/articles/1305-vatican-...ex-unions) when their own ranks are so stacked with male homosexuals.

Is it possible that in the past, the Catholic priesthood, a brotherhood of men who couldn’t marry, yet were still respected members of society not suspected of being gay, was an attractive option for young homosexual men unwilling to publically admit their sexual inclination?

What made, and makes, so many of them abuse children is unclear. Perhaps they couldn’t unashamedly address their sexuality with other adults, and found themselves isolated. Children became an easy target because they were vulnerable, and explanations weren’t necessary.

Irrespective of the possible reasons, there are no excuses, and the statistics are shocking! Thousands of heartless, sadistic, Catholic priests gratified themselves at the expense of innocent children, usually pre pubescent boys who weren’t confident or physically strong enough to resist their advances.

Fuck. I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed. I'm not writing all that again today, I'll get back to you either tomorrow or the next day, however, all I'll leave you with this: Most of those points are either half truths, or completely factually incorrect. Only, like, three points you made are true all the way through.

"I was almost the entire way through writing an extensive reply when my browser crashed"

That's happened to me a few times too. I'm a little surprised you even actually read what I wrote. I'd be interested to hear what you thought, so please try again.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: