Catholics Unfairly Treated In Abuse Story

[Allweather]

Matthew 18:5 ""And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 ¶ Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

That’s about as harsh punishment as is ever mentioned. I think only Judas got the same treatment. But that’s not really what I wanted to discuss. There’s no question it’s very serious, perhaps even unpardonable. But I wanted to discuss how certain anti-Christian elements are seizing on this issue to attack Christianity as a whole and maybe even the Catholic church specifically.

The context of the quote you used shows IMO that Jesus was talking about something else than child abuse, although I can see how these verses can be interpreted otherwise. The only reason I mention this is because it helps to serve as an indicator how Scripture can be interpreted differently, especially if the context is omitted or limited.

As far as child abuse being unpardonable, it isn’t. For all intents and purposes there are no unpardonable sins. Any sin that is repented and confessed is freely forgiven its eternal consequences by God through the Church, though not necessarily its temporal ones.

As far as the anti-Christian elements being out to get the churches, personally I don’t attribute this to a widespead conspiracy, Satanic or otherwise. People to hold themselves to a high level of morality, especially sexual morality, will naturally come under scrutiny from those who don’t. The world is chasing a hedonistic view of sexuality, while the churches generally, and the Catholic Church in particular, is teaching a very organized and comprehensive view that stands in opposition to those who think that sexuality is a plaything for men.

Most of this publicity is nothing more than the selling of product. The hedonists love news about fallen priests, and so we can expect that the media will use this type of news to sell product. That is just common sense, and we can’t expect the media to give a free ride to the churches anymore than anyone else who screws up. We church people are sensitive to this issue, and so we notice it. Just like, when a postal worker hears someone make a wisecrack about “going postal.”

 

[ApostateRLDS]

So, the report supports a statement that 9.6 percent of all students in grades 8 to 11 reported having experienced at some point in their school life contact and/or noncontact educator sexual misconduct that was unwanted. This, while disturbing, is not identical to saying that “10% of public school children were subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of school staff.”

That is your opinion. An opionion I don’t share. Any unwanted sexual contact, especially when it’s experienced by a child, is sexual abuse. It’s not limited to physical contact. The point is that the study I’m referring to, which was conducted by the University of Hofstra, was essentially ignored by the media, while any allegation, whether substantiated or not, against the Catholic Clergy is splashed all over the media.

I stand by my previous post.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateRLDS
Quote:

Oh for the love of God! The study concluded that about 10% of students are sexually abused, not less than 10%. The point is that this study was mostly ignored when it was released, even though the number of children abused in the schools is staggering. However, if any accusation is made against a Catholic Priest, valid or not, it becomes front page news.

Yes, I agree with you. The media did pass this study by, in favor of some more juicy news.

And I apologize to you, RLDS. It seems we were arguing
on the same side.

I think I was just allowing my anger over this subject get a hold of me. 1 child is still too many, though.

Your anger is understandable, so, to quote Johnny Depp as Joe Pistone,’ F’get about it.’

 

[KarenNC]

That is your opinion. An opionion I don’t share. Any unwanted sexual contact, especially when it’s experienced by a child, is sexual abuse. It’s not limited, nor should it be, to physical contact.

I stand by previous post.

No, it is not my “opinion.” It is what the results of the study you cited as the basis of your statement support based on the data collected. To say that it supports a statement that 10% of school children suffered sexual abuse by school staff is simply factually incorrect. To say that you have incorrect information is not a moral judgement on you. If you choose to knowingly stand by incorrect factual information, then, well, I suppose that is your perogative.

There exists a legal definition of sexual abuse and it is that legal definition that is being used in discussions of sexual abuse of children by priests, school staff, their parents or anyone. It is not the same as sexual harrassment, though both have a sexual component and neither are desirable. If you are going to compare rates of sexual abuse by priests and school staff, then you need to compare them on the basis of the same legal definition in order to get a meaningful comparison. If you say John has 10 more apples than Mary, when Mary is holding 3 apples and John has 4 apples and 9 nectarines, then you are factually incorrect. Yes, both nectarines and apples are fruits, and both can be held and both can be eaten and both grow on trees, but apples are not nectarines and you stated there were more apples. There is no difference in the factual errors.

Factual errors weaken your argument, and it deserves your best effort.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

There exists a legal definition of sexual abuse and it is that legal definition that is being used in discussions of sexual abuse of children by priests, school staff, their parents or anyone. If you are going to compare rates of sexual abuse by priests and school staff, then you need to compare them on the basis of the same legal definition in order to get a meaningful comparison.

---

Really? Try telling that to a psychologist or therapist. According to the America Pschological Association, there is no clear-cut definition of sexual abuse nor is it limited to physical contact.

What you’re talking about are legal definitions which are not
consistent from state to state, and don’t reflect reality. Besides, you miss the obvious point, that this report, which also included sexual contact, was essentially ignored. :banghead:

Why so quick to downplay abuse in the public school system?

 

[KarenNC]

That is your opinion. An opionion I don’t share. Any unwanted sexual contact, especially when it’s experienced by a child, is sexual abuse. It’s not limited to physical contact. The point is that the study I’m referring to, which was conducted by the University of Hofstra, was essentially ignored by the media, while any allegation, whether substantiated or not, against the Catholic Clergy is splashed all over the media.

I stand by my previous post.

It is the same study. The one I referenced, as you can see if you look at the link provided, was done by Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University and Interactive, Inc in 2004 for the US Dept of Education.

Whether it was ignored by the media or not does not change the issue that the results reported in the study simply do not support your statement that 10% of children in schools are sexually abused by school staff. This is not a matter of “opinion,” either yours or mine. Our opinions are irrelevant. It is a matter of the results reported by the study.

There is a legal definition of sexual abuse, and it is not the same as the defnition of sexual harrassment, which the study points out was included in the 9.6% number. Neither is desirable, but they are not the same. If you are going to compare the rates of sexual abuse by priests and sexual abuse by public school staff, then you need to compare rates of sexual abuse. Only then will you get a meaningful picture.

If you say that Johnny has eaten 5 more apples than Mary, when source A says Mary ate 3 apples and source B says Johnny ate 8 pieces of fruit including apples and nectarines, your statement is factually incorrect as it is not supported by the data and therefore it will not tell you anything about the comparative consumption of apples. The studies were not measuring the same variable. It is irrelevant whether you like nectarines as well as or better than apples, that they cost the same amount in the store, that both are fruits and both grow on trees. Apples are not nectarines.

 

[KarenNC]

Really? Try telling that to a psychologist or therapist. What you’re talking about are legal definitions which are not consistent from state to state, and don’t reflect reality. Besides, you miss the obvious point, that this report, which also included sexual contact, was essentially ignored. Why so quick to downplay abuse in the public school system?

I am not downplaying anything. I simply prefer, when possible, to verify that the results of a study as cited by someone (particularly when they include specific numbers) actually reflect what the study showed. This is growing increasingly possible, especially with government studies, thanks to the availability of public documents on the internet. Misstatements of fact do not enhance anyone’s argument. Whether it was ignored or trumpeted from the rooftops by the media does not change the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statement. If you are going to publicize it, then you need to publicize what it actually says.

Let’s return to the study you cited (my emphasis added):
"The distinction between “sexual misconduct” and “sexual abuse” is significant in legal and other terms. However, both are of concern to parents and the Department.
The author’s use of the two words interchangeably throughout the report is potentially confusing to the reader. Federal law gives separate and specific meaning to the words “sexual abuse,” and such words should not be confused with the broader, more general concept of “sexual misconduct.” Specifically, “sexual abuse” has been a defined term for over 17 years [18 U.S.C. § 2242]. It involves an act where one knowingly “causes another person to engage in a sexual act by threatening or placing that other person in fear. . .” or “engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is—(A) incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or (B) physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act. . . .” “Sexual abuse” carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both. "

There does exist a Federal legal definition, therefore, one that does not “differ from state to state,” either for perpetrators who are priests or who are school staff. Considering that those legal definitions are the standards which are used to prosecute one for a specific crime, and that the questions asked in the survey you cited were drawn from those defnitions, I am at a loss to understand what you mean when you say they do not “reflect reality.” In your opinion, what criteria would you use that you believe does “reflect reality?”

Here is what the study says about the particular data that mentions the 9.6% (my emphasis added):
"3.1.1.1 AAUW data and Shakeshaft secondary analysis. This analysis used data collected for American Association of University Women in Fall 2000 by Harris International. Eighth through 11th grade students in the sample responded to a survey administered by trained interviewers during English classes. The survey asked students about their experiences of various forms of sexual harassment or abuse in school using the question below. Students responded to each of the 14 types of sexual harassment listed below by selecting one of the following frequencies: “often,” “occasionally,” “rarely,” “never,” or “don’t know.” The 14 stems were developed by an advisory panel of experts in the field of sexual harassment and correspond to behaviors that legally constitute sexual harassment, abuse, or misconduct. The question focuses on experiences that occurred in school. The gating question asked students to respond to each type of behavior, no matter who the abuser had been. Follow-up questions for each of the behaviors identified the role of the abuser (student, teacher, other school employee, etc.) and the place where the abuse occurred. "

One presumes that “an advisory panel of experts in the field” might have an idea of whether the questions they asked reflected reality or not.

Psychologists and therapists also go by specific definitions. Have you ever heard of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, I believe we are still in DSM-IV), which sets out the criteria for diagnosis? It is pretty detailed.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

There is a legal definition of sexual abuse, and it is not the same as the defnition of sexual harrassment, which the study points out was included in the 9.6% number. Neither is desirable, but they are not the same. If you are going to compare the rates of sexual abuse by priests and sexual abuse by public school staff, then you need to compare rates of sexual abuse. Only then will you get a meaningful picture.

There is no single ‘legal’ definition of sexual abuse. It varies from state to state. For example, it’s limited to physical contact. Nor is there defininitive psychological meaning for that phrase. I was pointing out that the study which reported at ca. 10 % were abused(sexually, which does not have to include physical abuse) by public school staff was ignored. If I wanted to compare rates, I would have mentioned that the same study concluded that the public school system had a much worse problem than the Catholic Church, and that the rate of sexual abuse at the hands of school staff was 100 times greater in than the abuse that occurs in the Church.

 

[ApostateRLDS]

There does exist a Federal legal definition, therefore, one that does not “differ from state to state,” either for perpetrators who are priests or who are school staff. Considering that those legal definitions are the standards which are used to prosecute one for a specific crime, and that the questions asked in the survey you cited were drawn from those defnitions, I am at a loss to understand what you mean when you say they do not “reflect reality.” In your opinion, what criteria would you use that you believe does “reflect reality?”

Really, and when one was the last time that you know of anyone being prosecuted under Federal Statues? Which states use the United States Criminal Code as a template for their definitions of sexual abuse? Some states have very open-ended definitions; some states have very specific definitions. “Reflect reality” means that the limiting to physical contact this definition doesn’t reflect the damage done to children by exposing them to pornography, voyeurism or making inappropriate sexual comments; that is abuse.

Since I’m not a psychologist nor therapist , I’m not foolish enough or arrogant enough to use clinical reference material such as Diagnostic Manuals. These are intended to be used by professionals. If your a psychiatrist or a psychologist, let me know and I’ll re-think my position.

Until that time, I’m basing my opinon on my own conversations with a psychologist, what the APA has posted on it’s own web-page, and the gray matter between my ears.

 

[KarenNC]

**There is no single ‘legal’ definition of sexual abuse. It varies from state to state. For example, it’s limited to physical contact. Nor is there defininitive psychological meaning for that phrase. I was pointing out that the study which reported at ca. 10 % were abused(sexually, which does not have to include physical abuse) by public school staff was ignored. **

If there is no single definition of sexual abuse then all attempts at comparison are irrelevant. You cannot measure what you cannot define.

As I keep saying and showing you, the study you are citing does not say 10% of children were sexually abused.

If I wanted to compare rates, I would have mentioned that the same study concluded that the public school system had a much worse problem than the Catholic Church, and that the rate of sexual abuse at hands of school staff was 100 times greater in than the abuse that occurs in the Church.

I have the study in front of me (and I have included the link to it earlier for anyone who desires to see it for themselves). Please give me the page number and paragraph where it makes the statement that “rate of sexual abuse at hands of school staff was 100 times greater in than the abuse that occurs in the Church” or even alludes to such. I find no such conclusion.

Could you link your sources for data on the prevalence rate of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests? Your question has made me curious and I haven’t been able to find information listing the percentage of children abused compared to the general population of Catholic children.

 

[KarenNC]

**Since I’m not a psychologist nor therapist , I’m not foolish enough or arrogant enough to use clinical reference material such as Diagnostic Manuals. These are intended to be used by professionals. If your a psychiatrist or a psychologist, let me know and I’ll re-think my position. **

Are you then an attorney or law officer, so that you feel you are a “qualified” enough professional to mention the legal codes, if that is the criteria? In what way does stating that the DSM-IV exists and that clinicians use it as a diagnostic tool constitute being “foolish” and “arrogant?” I am not trying to diagnose what is and is not sexual abuse in any given situation. I am pointing out what the studies that you cited used as their basis for collecting data and that they do not say what you say they do based on their own criteria. If you feel that is not “reflective of reality” then I am truly puzzled as to why you felt it was a worthwhile statistic upon which to base your argument.

Until that time, I’m basing my opinon on my own conversations with a psychologist, what the APA has posted on it’s own web-page, and the gray matter between my ears.

I’m sorry, I had missed any previous reference you have made to the APA. I only saw your citation from the specific study. What has the APA listed on its webpage (a link would be great)?

 

[cheddarsox]

The report was not giving percentages of students abused by staff. So one can’t compare it side by side to percentage of Catholic kids abused by priests.

It does NOT show that abuse at the hands of school staff is 100 times that by priests. It shows that over the course of public schooling 10% of students report that they were subjected to at least one situation on that long list. Most of which is not sexual contact or insinuation by school staff.

I am not Catholic. I didn’t watch hours and hours of documentary of the church being raked over the coals. In other words, I didn’t contribute to the force behind what makes the media “over report” abuse in the Church (if indeed it does). They report what draws viewers.

If Catholics choose to pay close attention to such, for whatever reason, they themselves contribute to the media mania. If you buy every magazine, newspaper, etc, and tune in to every newscast or TV show on the subject, they will push it harder and harder.

Catholics claim that it is non-Catholics that are behind it, but I have paid very little attention, not tuned in or gone out of my way to watch the church get raked over the coals. Maybe I’m the odd one out…but I don’t hear my pagan or Protestant friends gloating and spending time or dollars feasting on this one either. Maybe the one’s they are feeding it to are the Church members themselves.

Of course I understand someone wanting to pay attention when the subject is one so close to heart and important. I do not fault you for this, but it is something to consider. The one’s I hear talk about the “scandal” the most, are Catholics.

 

[francesco920]

Instead of trying to root out this perverted, evil element of the Catholic church you blame the media for allegedly unfairly focusing on pedophilliac priests.

What was it about glass houses and stones?

I don’t understand why you see it as either/or.

I believe in both locking up for life priests that commit this horrible crime and in treating the Church fairly. It seems clear to me that the media, which has made it seem like the average priest has a high chance of being a child molester, has an agenda to undermine the Church make people feel like they cannot trust their priest.

Yes, clergy who do such things deserve severe punishment. The bishops who cover up for them deserve to be locked up as well (and stripped of their authority.) I am not at all trying to downplay the seriousness of their evil deeds.

What I am saying is that thanks to the secular media, many Americans (especially those who are already hostile to the Church, e.g. leftists, anti-Catholic Protestants) have a notion that the average priest has a good chance of being a child molester. However, in reality, the vast (VAST!) majority of priests are not sexual predators, despite the way the media makes it seem. Nor do they ever think of committing such an evil deed. It is undeniable that the media has disproportionally gone after the Catholic Church, thus creating the (false) impression that Holy Mother Church is a breeding ground for child molesters.

I once heard Fr. Corapi say that when he was in an airport one time, he smiled at a little kid and immediately the child’s mother took the kid into her arms as if to protect him from Fr. Corapi and gave the good priest a look as if to say something like “stay away from my child, you pedophile.” The biased coverage of the scandal was an insidious attempt at putting a barrier between the laity and their priests, thus destroying the Catholic family. Remember, we need our priests. The play a key role in our journey to salvation. Without them, we do not have the sacraments. In my opinion, the leftist media knew this, and exploited the horrible scandal to try to destroy the Catholic Church in this country, which is their biggest enemy. After all, if they were only interested in fair coverage, why is it that abuse in Protestant churches was barely covered, even though it is the same amount that went on in the Catholic Church? Why did the media make it seem like the sexual abuse problem was specific only to the Catholic Church, when this is not the truth?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Instead of trying to root out this perverted, evil element of the Catholic church you blame the media for allegedly unfairly focusing on pedophilliac priests.

What was it about glass houses and stones?

These Catholic complaints also - & most unfortunately, in my view - sound rather self-serving .​

The Church is not being accused because of her Christlike purity, integrity, & truthfulness; nor because the holiness of her members shows up the immorality of the rest of society: it’s being accused because it has behaved in a conspicuously unholy, unChristlike, impure, dishonest, untruthful, irresponsible fashion. And that is not good at all.

It’s entirely likely, human nature being what it is, that the unloveliness & faults & deficiencies of the CC are reported with Schadenfreude - but that does not make the reports untrue or unfair; & if there is something of that in the reporting of the Church’s woes, we are in no position to complain, since we have not been slow to make merry over the faults of others.

Instead of complaining about accusations in which there is all too much truth, we would do far better to repent of the rottenness in the Church which makes such vile things possible. ##

 

[Petergee]

Whenever there’s a story involving the church, it’s front page news and it goes on forever. When it’s a schoolteacher, it might get covered, but as local news and without much detail. There’s a big difference in how the stories get treated, I do believe there’s a discernable attempt to embarass religion.

And a huge treatement is given to unsubstantiated ALLEGATIONS against Catholic clergy and religious, and virtually none to the debunking of the allegations. A startling example a couple of years ago was when our major daily paper in Sydney ran a series of lurid front-page stories alleging that a particular religious order was swarming with pedophiles. When a few weeks later the police announced that their investigations into the order had failed to find any evidence to prosecute anybody, the same paper “buried” this information in a tiny paragraph on page 16.

It’s not entirely the media’s fault though that various factors combine to make it SEEM that sexual abusers are more common in the Catholic Church than they really are:

1. Because the Catholic Church is just so huge, far, far larger than any other organisation in the world. Any activity you can name, there will be more Catholics doing it than anyone else. No doubt there are far more philatelists in the Catholic church than in any other organisation. That doesn’t mean that there is some connnection between Catholicism and philately.
2. Because the Catholic church’s institutions are solidly established and keep meticulous records, and people usually commit to Catholic institutions for life, Catholic priests and religious almost always remain traceable all their life.
   Abusers in a non-Catholic school system or independent protestant "church’ simply go to another school system, church. State or country where no-one can trace them and their previous deeds are never discovered, or if they are the offender can’t be traced. Sometimes the church or institution they belonged to doesn’t even exist any more. Not so if it was a Catholic institution.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

I believe that the media coverage regarding the abuse scandal was needed to effect changes. There is absolutely no excuse for the abuse and the “cover-ups” that occured and we can only pray for the healing of those who were abused. I suppose we must all bear the humiliation caused by these few clergymen and humiliation seems to be an appropriate “punishment” for a crime that causes deep humiliation in its victims (I am personally aquainted with that kind of humiliation, so I know whereof I speak). On the other hand, I am disgusted with the media who so willingly destroys a priests life upon an unfounded accusation and then does nothing to restore the priest’s reputation when the accusation turns out to be false.

But the point of the thread is the “unfair” treatment of the Church. I would take that to mean that the Catholic Church was treated differently (for whatever reason) than other churches that had some of the same heinous activity. Take a look at this link. Where is the outrage? Where is the intense investigation? Why don’t more people know about this? Lest I be misunderstood, I am not justifying the actions of Catholic clergy by pointing to someone else and saying “see, they have criminals too”. I simply submit that the media scrutiny is not as intense with protestants. This probably stems from the fractured nature of protestant churches. There is no central head to take aim at on a national level, but rather just some local coverage about a rogue pastor who molested someone.

 

[rmcmullan]

Here’s some more news stories, this one is entitled “Report: Sexual Misconduct Plaguing U.S. Schools”

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303780,00.html

The foxes are in the henhouse. This story is not for the squemish or tender-hearted, it’s down right distrubing.

 

[BrewMax]

The reason that the Catholic Church gets picked on so much is because the thing the media (and other forces of secularism) hate the most is the Holy Catholic Church. They hate the fact that She stands up against secularism, relativism, abortion, contraception, homosexuality, and pornography. Interestingly, what the media neglects to report is that the priests doing these horrible things are mostly homosexual…but of course reporting that would be bigoted wouldn’t it?

The reason that abuse in public schools doesn’t get covered is because public schools are the left wing centers of indoctrination. You know, it’s where we learn that Christianity (especially Catholicism) is evil, that America is evil, that Europe is evil, that homosexuality and other “alternative” lifestyles are good, how to contracept, how to contact Planned Parenthood when the contraception fails, how to get an abortion and keep it hidden from your parents, etc.

It’s sad but that’s the truth.

baloney…

 

[BrewMax]

And a huge treatement is given to unsubstantiated ALLEGATIONS against Catholic clergy and religious, and virtually none to the debunking of the allegations. A startling example a couple of years ago was when our major daily paper in Sydney ran a series of lurid front-page stories alleging that a particular religious order was swarming with pedophiles. When a few weeks later the police announced that their investigations into the order had failed to find any evidence to prosecute anybody, the same paper “buried” this information in a tiny paragraph on page 16.

It’s not entirely the media’s fault though that various factors combine to make it SEEM that sexual abusers are more common in the Catholic Church than they really are:

1. Because the Catholic Church is just so huge, far, far larger than any other organisation in the world. Any activity you can name, there will be more Catholics doing it than anyone else. No doubt there are far more philatelists in the Catholic church than in any other organisation. That doesn’t mean that there is some connnection between Catholicism and philately.
2. Because the Catholic church’s institutions are solidly established and keep meticulous records, and people usually commit to Catholic institutions for life, Catholic priests and religious almost always remain traceable all their life.
   Abusers in a non-Catholic school system or independent protestant "church’ simply go to another school system, church. State or country where no-one can trace them and their previous deeds are never discovered, or if they are the offender can’t be traced. Sometimes the church or institution they belonged to doesn’t even exist any more. Not so if it was a Catholic institution.

baloney…

 

[BrewMax]

These Catholic complaints also - & most unfortunately, in my view - sound rather self-serving .​

The Church is not being accused because of her Christlike purity, integrity, & truthfulness; nor because the holiness of her members shows up the immorality of the rest of society: it’s being accused because it has behaved in a conspicuously unholy, unChristlike, impure, dishonest, untruthful, irresponsible fashion. And that is not good at all.

It’s entirely likely, human nature being what it is, that the unloveliness & faults & deficiencies of the CC are reported with Schadenfreude - but that does not make the reports untrue or unfair; & if there is something of that in the reporting of the Church’s woes, we are in no position to complain, since we have not been slow to make merry over the faults of others.

Instead of complaining about accusations in which there is all too much truth, we would do far better to repent of the rottenness in the Church which makes such vile things possible. ##

This is a truthful look at the situation and an honest evaluation of how it has been handled. Thank you for having your eyes opened and looking at this horrific situation with truth.