Catholics talk abuse Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
I think they're going to be only as serious as they're required to be by public scrutiny. They'll get away with whatever they can, partly because this is so systemic and partly because they're like any other large institution (Penn State, anyone?) in that they're more interested in making the controversy stop than they are in actually protecting the victims. If I have any regard for Catholics, it's for *Catholics* and not for the institution that is Catholicism. Catholics have been and will continue to be the most outspoken lot when it comes to holding the Church to its promises. | |
I imagine its part serious effort, part PR.
Now you are being silly and unfair. Of course culture matters. There are parts of the world where sex with ANYONE other than your wife/husband is illegal and there is no age of consent. In the "west" age of consent ranges from 12 to 19. In a fair number of US states, there is no minimum age of consent if you are married (and no minimum age to marry). In some places those "in a position of power" have special higher age of consent requirements, in others, that is not the case. And once you get past age, what is sexual abuse? In some cultures, seeing a child over 7 naked is inappropriate. In the US, a naked child in a non sexual pose is fine (and now go define non sexual pose), and in places like Russia, nude kids, even obviously sexuality, are fine as long as there is no physical sexual contact with adults. So what standard do you follow? For example, does the church impose the standard from Rome where they are located of 12 world wide? Heck, that would make much of the child abuse "legal". Or should they look at the higher standards in other countries to see what is appropriate there? What is appropriate is very much culture specific. Just look at the long thread on having sex with your babysitter to see that it isn't even close to a cut and dry situation even within one culture. | |
a) There*** is a problem. b) You do not that Catholic faith involves the belief that we are all sinners, we are all troubled, and there are always problems. Of course the Church admits there is a problem, pretending to be perfect would be practically against Church doctrine, as would not trying to fix the problems... This image that the Catholic Church has tried to pretend it is faultless in every action of the clergy is just absolutely fabricated... | |
I wouldn't worry about what reonhato says. He compared religion to disease before, if I'm not mistaken. | |
Yes, but the first (and really only) step to getting along is understanding each other, and the biggest reasons I hear people claiming as why they are against religion are "religion thinks it's perfect and nobody else is" or "religion thinks it has all the answers and everyone else is wrong" and these are horrendous strawman arguements, and anyone who views religion this way just doesn't understand what they're talking about. | |
I remember them announce the same thing in medio 2011. What happened to that? Anyway, this is just PR. The handling of recently published and new sex abuse scandals speaks volumes about the actual policy, and that policy is still trying to cover it up, play it down and deny any official involvement. Don't make the mistake of thinking that's just a catholic problem though. Plenty of protestant pastors and church elders can't keep their fingers to themselves either. The religious culture of sex being taboo and placing people in a position of authority they don't deserve will always be an incident waiting to happen. | |
It's not just a religious problem. Look at any political system to see people abusing their position for sex or other personal gain. Unfortunately for the good people in these systems, humans are fallible, and those in charge will do the best they can to protect their private pleasures. The papacy isn't inherently bad, but until it stops trying to protect the people who are preying on their flock I will continue to look at it askance. | |
Oh what a load of crap. You know sexual abuse happens in non religious households too right? | |
It think it's kind of beyond that when the current pope, the head of the whole bloody catholic church, actively lead an initiative to cover up cases of sexual abuse of children! Come on, you must realize that there is some middle ground between being perfect and covering up pedophilia! | |
When it comes to institution of religion, this isn't only a question of abuse, but a question of hypocrisy. See, the problem is that whenever a priest oversteps his bounds and harasses/molests someone, the church covers it up and transfers him to another position. | |
That is also not unique to religion. It's pretty common for many groups to "circle the wagons to protect their own". You see it with politicians, police officers, doctors, lawyers, etc. | |
When they admit they're just a worldly institution, we'll lower the bar accordingly. As for the topic: Good. I'm as sceptical as the next guy (possibly more, even), but us atheists need to be careful to stick with criticising and not start demonising. It's a matter of utmost improbability that the whole congregate is composed of 100% mallicious bastards. Besides, even if it was the case, it's in their own interest. I can imagine them going "interests of the church vs. intersts of the children? I'll take the church". But in this instance, it's in the best interest of both for this to stop, and I'm not prepared to believe they'd actually try to find a different way to promote their interests if they can do that AND prevent children from getting abused. Not even catholics are that evil *g ~Sylv | |
Just because everyone does it doesn't mean it's okay, Jesus taught that on more than one occasion. I will agree that it's wrong to single out the church as if it is the only offending body, but the underlying issue is that pedophilia is wrong and the scandal does need to stop. It's good that the church is trying to get leaders together to discuss this, but really the only thing Catholics can do is pray for their priests. | |
It does, but at a much lower rate. And among religious households, a similar divide is seen between strictly religious people and people who only take a hint or two from their religion; if sex is taboo, sexual abuse occurs more often. Besides, in the case of churches, abuse of power and covering up a heinous crime is also added to that. There's quite a difference between doctors not immediatly burning down a colleague who makes a mistake, and actively working to keep the worst type of sex offender from receiving any punishment. | |
The Church is an institution. Like any institution, it lives on its public image. Do you think the people running this are any different from the board of directors of a huge company? They don't CARE about a comparative handful of victims among the millions. When the Church called those who reported abuse "Malcontents" it demonstrated that. The only thing they really care about in this situation is their appearance. | |
Of course its not alright. I was just pointing out that the other two posters pinning it as something unique to religion were wrong. | |
I've done a few searches and can't find anything backing you up on this claim. Citation?
Maybe you don't understand what happens, but doctors and lawyers and politicians and judges and other professions/groups often actively keep people from paying for what they have done and actively hide it. | |
Just a few weeks ago the Netherlands had a report that the church was very much dodging blame all over the place. You'd think that the fear of their god would help them at least confess, or help those victims, instead of acting like a movie mobster and going "Ey.. I dunno what ya talkin''bout!" | |
Nothing you could read. Some people compared cases from specialised reformist social services in the Netherlands to their total population and compared it with data from regular social services. The difference was quite staggering. Those specialised services had also rang the alarm bell about the rising number of child abuse cases they were seeing. As for the rest of sexual abuse... That comes from common criminology studies about who perpetrates sexual abuse of children in the family. It often comes from sexual frustration. Sexual frustration like you see in strictly religious families that stop having sex after a few years together because talking about feelings is taboo, raising many children is a strain and sex of all things is taboo, so you don't ever say you're unhappy about not having sex anymore. It's merely applying common knowledge about sexual abuse to the consequences of a strictly religious background. This one mentioned it specifically, but you'd need to have a login: This study for instance has particular attention for protective qualities towards criminal behaviour, and lists things like a good relationship between and with parents as a protective factor against problems. Kind of hard to have that if everything is forbidden and not talked about. Heck, when I talked to her for the first time, in five minutes I knew more about the church elder's daughter than her own father does. Why? If it was known she was on the pill or had a boyfriend there'd be hell to pay, so it's kept quiet, just like sexual abuse within the family has to be kept quiet. And I learned about just how much hell to pay when my wife left his church. Months of shit from them culminated in him barging into our house to intimidate my wife and in the end I had to throw him out and he didn't leave untill he realised he wasn't getting past me and the police were on their way. Imagine being the child of a maniac like that... And after all, sexual abuse isn't such a big, right? Christianity is about forgiving right? | |
I'm still waiting for the pope to abolish the whole celibacy crap in the catholic church. It just isn't healthy to keep priests from having sexual partners. I think that would solve many more problems than any possible "rules". | |
It might surprise you to learn that celibacy is not actually a requirement of priesthood. To throw a few points around. | |
Actually this must be the first and only source stating such a thing. Having been to a catholic high school and having followed a course of religion for 6 years i can tell you this is wrong. Celibacy is a requirement if you want to be a part of the clergy. But you are right, you are not forced into it, you choose it the moment you choose to become a priest. EDIT: Actually i just noticed you misread your own source: "The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood (or, in the Eastern rites, for the episcopacy) from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage. " Which basically means celibacy is a requirement for priesthood. | |
They meet to talk about the problem my ass. They have a PR problem. This is all this is to them. They have had plenty of opportunity and time to act. We all know they knew. They bloody well knew what was going on. But only when the lid blew off this stinking affair, they meet to talk. And the guy most known for protecting his pedophile buddies is now leading them. Amazing. Simply amazing. And the sheep (other Catholics) are still following. Still giving them money, power and legitimacy. This has been going on for hundreds of years. Yes do not think this is has been a problem the last 50 years. Just imagine how many children had suffered when this church was in charge of pretty much anything. When people couldn't question them with out ending in jail or worse. Good grief. And I feel sorry for the Catholics that still think this organization is run by celestial approval and guidance and do not see it for what it really is. Evil old men abusing their powers given to them by the gullible. The flock are the source of their power. | |
It's PR, nothing more. How do I know? Just look at the Catholic church, Ireland, and the comments from the Pope regarding how it's above the law regarding the abuse cases. That it needed to be dealt with internally. Sure, rape kids, needs to be dealt with internally. No. Should be dealt with by the law of the land. Also I think sums it up nicely. | |
I really expect nothing to come of this but a phoney apology if that, the Catholic Church is just another 'old boys club' who protect their own at all costs. Actually I have the perfect song for this... Child molesters and Jesuits, Sinister rouge, coming back for more, Can't seem to get it to display, here's a link | |
You start with one fact and then make up your own reason why religious people must have bad sex lives and not talk about sex. I'm afraid that's your prejudice talking.
Oh wait, now religion = Christianity again? Well we know that's silly. | |
Or you just won't acknowledge the links between things because it's your religion and admitting it makes you uncomfortable. I don't like making it personal like that, but if you're going to accuse me of just making things up... Well...
Well, I can't claim to experience with how sex crimes are swept under the rug in other religions, that's why. From Christianity however... Oh boy, I've seen and heard enough to fill books with. And that's merely from using to be a little connected within a few Reformist churches. Imagine the staggering scale the problems must be in total. | |
[/quote] I was quite open to the possibility, that's why I searched (unsuccessfully) myself and why I asked you for sources. And you are making things up. Even the studies, which I'm trusting you to have represented correctly, don't back your conclusion. At this point, you have not demonstrated a causality, you have just given your opinion on something.
Once again, taking you at your word for the studies, taking a look at one small group of churches in one country does not support the conclusion you reached that it can be applied to "religion" or "religions" or "religious people". This, for example, is demonstrated by your assumption that religious people think sex is bad and is something not to be talked about, when in fact a number of religions take the opposite view. What you are doing is the equivalent of "I looked at all black people in the LA ghetto and the number of black people on drugs far exceeded the general population therefore black people are drug users". You also have to look within that community for more details. Is the abuse in families and does family size matter? Is the abuse coming from authority figures like religious leaders? How does the actual sub population where there is a problem correlate to similar populations elsewhere (for example, religious leaders vs coaches) You are reading into very limited data your preconceived notions. And once again, I'm open to the possibility you are right, especially if you are speaking of a sub group of religions and not all religions. There is no doubt, for example, that a certain UTAH based religious group has a history of promoting sex with children. Your broad generalizations however are without foundation. | |
All of this is rendered null and void by the fact that Catholic Priests are supposed to be celibate, and therefore abstain from any kind of sexual encounter for the rest of their lives. What does it matter if a certain country has a consent age of 12? Catholic priests, according to their own rules, shouldn't be getting anyone to consent to sex with them. Naked children are fine? When the hell is a Catholic priest expected to handle a naked child outside of a christening or baptism? Age of consent is non-existent if the person is already married? Show me exactly where in Catholic dogma it says that it's ok for priests to go round having sex with anyone as long as they're married to someone else first. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, no kind of sexual contact is appropriate, and therefore this broo-ha ha they're talking about is irrelevant. If their priests have sworn off sex, then there's no reason why discussions of age of consent, marriage status, etc need apply. According to them, it's all off the books. They don't need to work out any new rules, they just need to enforce the ones they've already bloddy created for themselves. Personally I'm not surprised in the least that a religion which paints sex and sexuality as a base sin and forces its priests to choose a life of celibacy is suffering from endemic paedophilia and abuse. People are not supposed to go without sex. We're not designed that way. Sex is just another, perfectly natural part of the human experience. By painting it as some dirty, evil thing and making it forbidden for their priesthood to engage in, it's fucking obvious that any sexual urges felt by priests are going to be repressed and channelled in far more negative directions, rather than being allowed to expressed in a perfectly normal fashion. Condemning people for so much as feeling aroused is bound to cause people to try and repress those urges, and when such things are repressed they inevitably twist upon themselves and become a far darker reflection of the person's natural urges. | |
No it isn't. Breaking celibacy violates a church rule, but doesn't necessarily call for excommunication or loss of their position as a priest or church leader. They could be quite capable of continuing in those roles and the church (or any sane person) don't expect that a priest will never make a mistake or do anything wrong.
When they are on a camping trip, changing for a church soccer game, in a church child care facility, etc. Besides, I was only pointing out standards differ by location.
Once again, not what I said. Or do you think breaking any church rule is the same as raping a 2 year old? | |
You do realize we are talking about abuse and rape here? Not age of consent. | |
They miss used their position of power and trust. That is all that matters. It does not stop being rape just because the victim is of legal age. In most cases as this thread is about, they where kids. | |
Much like Rastelin said, it's not merely about age, it's about exploiting people for sex. I'm a strong opponent of punishing people for 'statutory rape' if it's just about a small age difference, but this is exactly the kind of crime for which statutory rape was meant in the first place: a situation where an older person abuses their power and authority to have sex with a child, whether or not the child itself will actively fight it at the time or not. The whole point of why child abuse is such a heinous crime is that the perpetrator intimidates their victims into not resisting. One shouldn't confuse that with consent or it being okay. | |
| Pages 1 2 NEXT | |
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/catholics-in-unprecedented-abuse-talks/story-fn3dxity-1226264168326
so apparently they have begun an unprecedented meeting on the abuse in the catholic church. at least they seem to be willing to admit their is a problem, but im afraid this is simply another publicity stunt so they can go "hey look we are trying"
seems like a good step forward, but again do you really think they will be enforced? i also love that they claim cultural differences are giving them some trouble formulating rules... i have some suggestions, how about dont fiddle with kids privates and dont stick your penis in them as rule number 1.
anyway, the victims that are going seem to be pretty skeptical, and honestly so am i.
so do you reckon its just a stunt, or are they actually serious about it?