1 in 14 priests accused of abuse

[james bond]

I read your post 53.
It's crap.

As you are probably aware, this is happening in my country. If you were at all interested, you could access plenty of evidence corroborating the OP.

Royal commission into child sexual abuse: 1,880 alleged perpetrators identified in Catholic Church - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Instead you want to peddle some left/right, liberal blah, blah crap. Honestly, either educate yourself on the issue or stay out of it.

There were systematic cover-ups, which is what the Royal Commission is all about. This isn't about hunting down individual priests as a means of attacking religion, ffs.

So you agree that we should blame homosexuality. Let's see if these 1880 are all homosexuals and that they were homosexuals before they became Catholic priests. Then we can start blaming the homosexuals again. Let them catch all the disgusting diseases and end up in hell. I want to see that printed by Sulzberger or else he should feel the burn of the laser on his appendage being castrated lengthwise in my Goldfinger video. Thanks for riling me up against Sulzberger and the liberal media lewisnotmiller.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have to say... you don't need to have lived in a dorm to understand that in youth many males cover for their friends less than honest liason's with girls outside their relationship.. Women however are no different in this regard.

What I do find quite shocking however is that you seem to equate two timing to being no more serious than blatant child abuse. I think the vast majority of of people see sex with minors for what it is and by what name and would have no hesitation of making others not least the authorities aware if they knew a close friend was engaged in such activity.

Have you reviewed any of the evidence in the commission?
I would have the same thought and had the same hope that you do, but there is evidence that this was regularly not the case.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you agree that we should blame homosexuality. Let's see if these 1880 are all homosexuals and that they were homosexuals before they became Catholic priests. Then we can start blaming the homosexuals again. Let them catch all the disgusting diseases and end up in hell. I want to see that printed by Sulzberger or else he should feel the burn of the laser on his appendage being castrated lengthwise in my Goldfinger video. Thanks for riling me up against Sulzberger and the liberal media lewisnotmiller.

Are you incapable of a simple and direct conversation?
If it helps, I DONT care if a pedophile is straight or homosexual. I DONT care if a consenting adult is straight or gay.

I ABSOLUTELY care about people in power using that power to procure sexual favours, and even moreso I care about non-consensual sexual acts. The systemic covering up of admitted offences seems like the key issue in all this.

Why you want to downplay, prevaricate or otherwise muddy the waters on this is beyond me.

 

[arthra]

Child abuse is in my view an issue that affects many institutions... child care centers, churches, Scouts, any place that affords an opportunity to abuse children. So what are some of the things that have been instituted to try to reduce the problem?

Mandatory reporting laws... It's required that schools, counselors and others report abuse to their local authorities so it can be investigated and dealt with.. prevented.

Most institutions nowadays require that an adult not be alone with a child.

The child abused may well need therapy in dealing with the affects of abuse.

The offending party is placed on a registry and should not be placed in a position of trust with other children.

 

[Midget01]

I thought this was a site with morals and honesty. Now it appears that anyone can print what they want and everyone can jump in and make comments wether they know what they are talking about or not. First of all Yes; there are a few men who became Priests for the wrong reasons. and God will deal with their sins. Yes children and even adults have been hurt with these scandals but it does none of any good to keep these horrible stories perpetuated and on going. This sin is not happening only in the seminary or the parishes. There are men and women who continue to silently get aware with the same sin and all you people can do is pick on the men of the church. It is a human sin - not a divine one. These men are not sinning because they were ordained by God to do this They are sinning because human's on this earth have caused pain on these men and they are responding in anger...I don't feel totally sorry for them because they have not sought help to stop the pain but I don't blame them either. Our focus should be on the children or adults who are affected to help them to grow past their pain and to live the life that God intended for them. We are not here to create anger and to instill hatred . God aspects them to bear their pain and to grow past them in their spiritiual Martyrdom. To dwell on it only creates more issues in the future. You guys need to stop and pray for all concerned. God is healing my issues and He can heal theirs but not as long as you keep the flame of anger alive for them.

 

[IndigoStorm]

This came across my feed this morning:



7 percent of Australian Catholic priests accused of abuse

Hemant Mehta (of the Friendly Atheist) raises questions about how this volume of abuse claims should be viewed:


7% of Australian Priests Have Been Accused of Sexual Abuse, Says Lawyer to Royal Commission

So... what do you think? Does the scale of the abuse point to an institional problem and not just an issue with "a few bad apples"?

Also, do you see this as implicating the remaining 93% at all? It's occurred to me that priestly living arrangements are a lot like a college dorm... and when I was in a dorm, the close environment meant I knew which of my dorm mates was cheating on his girlfriend, which was sneaking out at night, etc. If every person who directly committed abuse had a few people who knew about it and did nothing - which I'd say is a reasonable bet - how many Australian priests were complicit in child abuse? A third? More than half?

With regards to employees of the RC Church, without a doubt their archaic law prohibiting priests from marrying plays a part in child abuse/pedophilia.

However the fact that men and women of the so called cloth commit heinous crimes against children, is neither here not there. To a child being abused by a priest/pastor/minister, the effect on them is unlikely to be any worse than or less had the guilty party been a schoolteacher or the father of their best friend.

The bottom line is that these perverts, be they part of a church or not, should keep their hands off children.

Pedophilia is a crime and even if a fraction of a percent of perpetrators are priests it is still 100% too many.

 

[savagewind]

With regards to employees of the RC Church, without a doubt their archaic law prohibiting priests from marrying plays a part in child abuse/pedophilia.

However the fact that men and women of the so called cloth commit heinous crimes against children, is neither here not there. To a child being abused by a priest/pastor/minister, the effect on them is unlikely to be any worse than or less had the guilty party been a schoolteacher or the father of their best friend.

The bottom line is that these perverts, be they part of a church or not, should keep their hands off children.

Pedophilia is a crime and even if a fraction of a percent of perpetrators are priests it is still 100% too many.

I think that people who by their profession appear to be God fearing do more damage to children's psyches because sometimes a child can't but wonder what God is doing letting evil people in.

If someone who doesn't profess to be working for God abuses a child, the child might think he or she needs God, but a priest already does seem to have God on his side.

 

[james bond]

Are you incapable of a simple and direct conversation?
If it helps, I DONT care if a pedophile is straight or homosexual. I DONT care if a consenting adult is straight or gay.

I ABSOLUTELY care about people in power using that power to procure sexual favours, and even moreso I care about non-consensual sexual acts. The systemic covering up of admitted offences seems like the key issue in all this.

Why you want to downplay, prevaricate or otherwise muddy the waters on this is beyond me.

The systematic covering up of non-consensual sex acts is done by who? To you, it's the Catholic church. Well, I do not think they did that on purpose. So, if you want to dig a little deeper than what the liberal press is telling you then that leads to homosexuality in the case of boys. Here, in the US, we try to put these criminals in jail. What's going to happen to this priest? In the US, the boy and his family has to first gather information to find out the truth, get over what happened and then sue the church. It's an uphill battle just like with rape victims. It's like putting the boy all through it again. The liberal press like the New York Times will never blame homosexuals, but they will instantly blame the church and make it the cause. That's what I am saying and what is wrong. The liberal media should try and find out the cause, but they never will. I hope that the sickening things the people like Sulzberger target with his liberal reporters happens to them so they can experience these things first hand. Write about that Sulzberger, you creepo! Furthermore, pedophiles may not just be offshoots of homosexuality or heterosexuality but from other causes. At least, I am open minded enough to look for the real cause.

One of the worst cases, we had in the US was Joe Paterno. He was considered a hero of a football coach in the college ranks at Penn State University. However, he had an assistant coach who helped him win, cement his legacy and was a pedophile. His atrocities against boys he came in contact with at the university finally saw the light of day and guess who was helping cover it up. Joe Paterno and the university to some degree. It was sickening. Paterno is dead now, but he should get his when it is time for judgment. What a creep this guy turned out to be. He still has his winning football legacy, but this has stained it so much that it cannot be removed although people will try.

I do not think your society is any different. If the person was in power or rich, then they will try to get it quickly put under the rug as soon as possible. I've personally experienced trying to put these creeps in jail, but it is no easy task. One truly has to be lucky to make a case stick and the victim files a crime report. All one can do is suck it up and try to act and be professional. To the victims and their families, it's an uphill battle of emotional stages and their will to fight.

 

[james bond]

If one want to get at one of the sources of sexual perversion in society, then we can look to sex researchers Alfred Kinsey and cult psychoanalyst Wilheim Reich. Not only that, we find the New York Times under Pinch Sulzberger as one of their most prominent backers.

Alfred Kinsey, Time Magazine cover, 1953
“The only unnatural act is that which you cannot perform.”

"It comes as a big shock to learn that two of the fathers of the Sexual Revolution were both sexual perverts with an evangelical mission in life: to infect society with their wacky ideas and turn the world into a vast masturbatorium.

The underlying assumption here is that sex is the great liberator and that all political and economic frustrations can be alleviated by sexual activity—particularly by obsessive and addictive sex. People who spend all their waking hours in search of sexual stimulation are obviously unfit to organize pogroms, mount bloody revolutions, or become a threat to the rich and powerful.

...

"The New York Times, owned by the Sulzberger family and known to be America’s foremost organ of left/liberal propaganda, did its best (like the Rockefeller Foundation) to promote Kinsey and turn his name into a household word. Indeed, it comes as no surprise to learn that Arthur Hays Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, was actually on the board of trustees for the Rockefeller Foundation all during the time it was approving money for Kinsey’s dubious experiments (see here, p. 340)."

The above and every paper they publish is why the New York Times and the Sulzberger Family are one of the most prominent hypocrites in the history of humankind. -- James Bond

Full article here
Masters Of Porn: The Systematic Promotion Of Sexual Deviance | Conspiracy Theories

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The systematic covering up of non-consensual sex acts is done by who? To you, it's the Catholic church. Well, I do not think they did that on purpose.

At this point I need to ask whether youve read anything about this issue at all.
This isn't 'liberal media reporting'.
It's a freaking Royal Commission.
And systemic cover-ups is the point. Systemic. As in organizational.

I could care less if the organization in question is Christian, atheist or followers of Barney the Dinosaur, and pretty much everything you are posting is completely unrelated to the Royal Commission.

Dig a little deeper, in your own words. Move past the media and their biases.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@james bond , this is NOT a liberal paper, although it's the largest selling paper where I live.

'All roads lead to Rome': Priest who alerted Vatican to abuse was sacked, commission hears

 

[Glaurung]

So... what do you think? Does the scale of the abuse point to an institional problem and not just an issue with "a few bad apples"?

The "few bad apples boat" has long sailed at this point. This was a systemic, decades long policy of silence and cover-up.

Everyone sins according to christianity. The pope and priest are no exclusion. Theyre not god.

This was written by Saint Peter Damian in the eleventh century regarding precisely this issue (the abuse of minors) as well as general clerical laxity.

Listen, you do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests. Listen, and even though you feel sure of yourselves, tremble at the thought that you are partners in the guilt of others; those, I mean, who wink at the sins of their subjects that need correction and who by ill-considered silence allow them license to sin. Listen, I say, and be shrewd enough to understand that all of you alike are deserving of death, that is, not only those who do such things, but also they who approve those who practice them (Rom 1:32).

The difference is that the Chruch claims to be the moral authority of the world. Catholics should have no illusions of course, the clergy is human, but it is not unreasonable to expect better of the Chruch than to simply move offending priests around and hope the problem goes away quietly. The damage to the Chruch would never have been so bad had they acted decisively against these people when it became evident that this was a problem.

And the hypocrisy goes deeper when you understand that a significant portion of the clergy are sexually active at any given time. (Albeit with consenting adults at least). Which is a big part of the reason why I'm not opposed to dropping (or at least heavily relaxing) the medieval celibacy requirement for diocesan clergy. The Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Eastern Catholics and the various Protestants sects have done just fine with married priests, as did the Latin Chruch in its first eleven-hundred years of existence.

It won't solve the issue completely, this is not an exclusively Catholic issue. But it is a valid question whether it is appropriate to expect the secular clergy to promise (and often fail to keep) a state of life that was really intended for monastics. Clerical celibacy may have made sense when western feudalism was at its height, but that world is long gone. If there is nothing sinful in getting married then what's the problem?

 

[psychoslice]

When we depress the urges of the body, it will always show its nasty little head in many ways such sex with whoever, usually the young because of their innocents, sad but true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The last part wasnt part of my post reply.

The "few bad apples boat" has long sailed at this point. This was a systemic, decades long policy of silence and cover-up.

If I were a priest and a used boys and I repent and made reconceliation with the church/members of the body of christ, I would be horrified to find the church is covering up my sins when I expressed them to god.

I dont see the church as an organization. It wouldnt be a religion if it were. Their are bad apples in the Church. Many catholics know somenpriests didnsin. It wasnt a cover up. Everyone knows. Just some peoplengone beyomd blaming the church for what people did and see more of the individials reconcelation with christ. They may deny how much power the church has but then, unless the church is our us government, I just see sinning priests. Everyone sins. The Church is nonexclusion.

This was written by Saint Peter Damian in the eleventh century regarding precisely this issue (the abuse of minors) as well as general clerical laxity.

If I were the Pope or priest, Inwould not automatically be god. These are people yall accusing.

Reminds me of everyome blaming our government for everyone elses downfall yet People are the ones who work in the goverment. Maybe address the procedure of how things are planed but not the people and people who govern the us.

I dont understand how your reference relatesnto my quote.

 

[Milton Platt]

This came across my feed this morning:



7 percent of Australian Catholic priests accused of abuse

Hemant Mehta (of the Friendly Atheist) raises questions about how this volume of abuse claims should be viewed:


7% of Australian Priests Have Been Accused of Sexual Abuse, Says Lawyer to Royal Commission

So... what do you think? Does the scale of the abuse point to an institional problem and not just an issue with "a few bad apples"?

Also, do you see this as implicating the remaining 93% at all? It's occurred to me that priestly living arrangements are a lot like a college dorm... and when I was in a dorm, the close environment meant I knew which of my dormmates was cheating on his girlfriend, which was sneaking out at night, etc. If every person who directly committed abuse had a few people who knew about it and did nothing - which I'd say is a reasonable bet - how many Australian priests were complicit in child abuse? A third? More than half?

There will always be some false accusations. If for no other reason than childhood memories can become muddled later in life. There also will be many unreported cases...shame, embarrassment, will cause this. It is literally impossible to put a hard number on the problem. None of this an attempt to justify the situation. I find it repugnant. If I were to make a guess, I would say that the unreported cases far outnumber the false accusations.

 

[Milton Platt]

The last part wasnt part of my post reply.


If I were a priest and a used boys and I repent and made reconceliation with the church/members of the body of christ, I would be horrified to find the church is covering up my sins when I expressed them to god.

I dont see the church as an organization. It wouldnt be a religion if it were. Their are bad apples in the Church. Many catholics know somenpriests didnsin. It wasnt a cover up. Everyone knows. Just some peoplengone beyomd blaming the church for what people did and see more of the individials reconcelation with christ. They may deny how much power the church has but then, unless the church is our us government, I just see sinning priests. Everyone sins. The Church is nonexclusion.



If I were the Pope or priest, Inwould not automatically be god. These are people yall accusing.

Reminds me of everyome blaming our government for everyone elses downfall yet People are the ones who work in the goverment. Maybe address the procedure of how things are planed but not the people and people who govern the us.

I dont understand how your reference relatesnto my quote.

nearly all religions are organized, and therefore they are organizations.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

nearly all religions are organized, and therefore they are organizations.

I dont see religions as organizations. They arent businesses making money. Religion isnt a business.

Thats like having a group of friends and I give out cup cakes for free because we are like that. One person behind my back decides to charge peoplenwithout my knowing. I wonder why we get so many "good customers." We must be doing well for a small group who loves handing out cake. But someone took advantage of our group for money.

It goes all over the news and people think "Carlita's business went down hill" and while Im trying to clean up everyones mess other people are selling cakes that are originally free.

Regardless of the people who chose to make money off our cakes, my group was never a business. It was not an organization where "you make a profit". The point is the love of giving out cakes.

I see the same as the Church. The People of the Church may abuse other members and body but the Church is not about profit, cover ups, etc. Thats not the point of the RCC and any church or religion.

You cant base ye definition of the church based on what a handful of people did in the church that gave it Again a bad name. A family is still a family. Once you see it as something else, it becomes bias and negative. Thats not religion.

 

[McBell]

They arent businesses making money.

What country do you live in?

 

[Milton Platt]

I dont see religions as organizations. They arent businesses making money. Religion isnt a business

Religions make huge sums of money. And it is tax free and they aren't required to be transparent about where the funds go. So that statement is demonstrably false. They are, in fact, a business. And they own many other businesses from which they extract profits. Why do you think you have televangelists flying around the world in private jets and living in multi-million dollar mansions? It's the best racket ever invented.

Thats like having a group of friends and I give out cup cakes for free because we are like that. One person behind my back decides to charge peoplenwithout my knowing. I wonder why we get so many "good customers." We must be doing well for a small group who loves handing out cake. But someone took advantage of our group for money.

It goes all over the news and people think "Carlita's business went down hill" and while Im trying to clean up everyones mess other people are selling cakes that are originally free.

Regardless of the people who chose to make money off our cakes, my group was never a business. It was not an organization where "you make a profit". The point is the love of giving out cakes.

I see the same as the Church. The People of the Church may abuse other members and body but the Church is not about profit, cover ups, etc. Thats not the point of the RCC and any church or religion.

I do not know of any religious groups that have no need for money.

You cant base ye definition of the church based on what a handful of people did in the church that gave it Again a bad name. A family is still a family. Once you see it as something else, it becomes bias and negative. Thats not religion.

I am not doing this. I am basing it on what the ORGANIZATION of religion does. You are using a definition of religion that is outside of the normative.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I dont see religions as organizations. They arent businesses making money. Religion isnt a business.

'Making money' has nothing to do with whether something is an organisation or not. To be clear, this Royal Commission isn't putting Catholicism on trial. It is investigating coverups by certain sections of the Catholic Church in Australia, with some particular aspects of the Church being investigated more heavily, such as the Marist Brothers. These are registered organisations, with heirarchies, reporting responsibilities, and a duty of care to those whom they taught (in the case of schools), cared for (in the case of hospitals) and otherwise interacted with, just as any formal organization has.

Thats like having a group of friends and I give out cup cakes for free because we are like that. One person behind my back decides to charge peoplenwithout my knowing. I wonder why we get so many "good customers." We must be doing well for a small group who loves handing out cake. But someone took advantage of our group for money.

It goes all over the news and people think "Carlita's business went down hill" and while Im trying to clean up everyones mess other people are selling cakes that are originally free.

Regardless of the people who chose to make money off our cakes, my group was never a business. It was not an organization where "you make a profit". The point is the love of giving out cakes.

It's nothing like this.
It's more like, you are giving out chocolate cupcakes. One of your friends thinks it's funny to take a dump in the cake batter. This is obviously not your fault, nor the fault of your small group/orgnization, although it's obviously a shame for the people eating the cupcakes. As a penalty, you send her to the next room....where she continues to make cupcakes, and hand them out to people. Whilst there is a chance she's still taking a dump in the batter, you figure she should get a second chance. And maybe a third after that.

There is a point, then, where your group becomes liable for the actions of the group member, since you covered up and otherwise facilitated continued inappropriate action.

And if the thought of eating a cupcake made from poo is a little stomach-turning, I apologise for the image. Of course, it pales into insignificance compared to what ACTUALLY happened.

I see the same as the Church. The People of the Church may abuse other members and body but the Church is not about profit, cover ups, etc. Thats not the point of the RCC and any church or religion.

'The church is not about coverups...'

Once again, I need to ask someone whether they have reviewed any of the evidence provided to the Royal Commission. This isn't (only) about rogue priests, but the actions of the church heirarchy in dealing with the members of the organization when they committed acts of pedophilia, and the impact this had on future victims.

You cant base ye definition of the church based on what a handful of people did in the church that gave it Again a bad name. A family is still a family. Once you see it as something else, it becomes bias and negative. Thats not religion.

I base my definition of the church on how the church handled incidences of pedophilia and harming of children under it's care. In particular, I look at how the leaders of the church led. If it helps, I don't blame God, nor do I blame Catholics.