Ottawa Catholic archdiocese settles sex-abuse claim

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A peadophile is someone that abuses someone under age. That’s quite simple.
This forum is about abusive priests not semantics.Still smarting over your chastisement for insulting me?Go argue by yourself you’ll get no further communication from me.I guess you know more than the vatican:

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican

TODAY’S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE
SHARE: E-MAIL PRINT

By Hilary White

GENEVA, September 29, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in the US and abroad was a matter of homosexuals preying on adolescent boys, not one of pedophilia, said the Vatican’s representative at the UN in Geneva, Switzerland. It is “more correct,” said Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than pedophilia, in relation to the scandals.

“Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90 per cent belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17,” said Tomasi. His statement is backed up by a report commissioned by the US bishops that found that in the overwhelming majority of cases the clergy involved were homosexuals, with 81 percent of victims being adolescent males.

Tomasi also responded to criticisms, saying that while the Catholic Church has been “busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.” According to information from various sources, the problem of sexual abuse of minors in religious organizations is widespread among Protestant churches and Jewish communities.

The statement comes in the wake of accusations at the UN Human Rights Council, which published a written statement by a secularist group, the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), alleging that the Vatican was responsible for the proliferation of sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests. The IHEU accused the Church of a failure to honor obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“The Holy See has been heavily implicated for decades in covering up cases of child abuse carried our by its clergy and religious orders, in obstructing justice, and in failing to deal appropriately with abusers,” said Roy Brown, IHEU Main Representative at the UN Geneva.

“Yet for too long it has been given a free ride by the international community because of its presumed moral leadership. Our report is the first to bring the issue to the attention of the Council. We shall be referring to our report in the plenary of the Human Rights Council next week.”

Tomasi, however, defended the Church’s record, saying that “available research” showed that only 1.5 to 5 per cent of Catholic clergy had been implicated in abuse allegations, and suggesting that some of the focus ought to be shifted to other organizations that are plagued by accusations of sex abuse.

The vast plurality of Protestant churches in the US, numbering more than 224,000, including thousands of independent non-denominational groups, make the kind of organized tracking and recording of individual abuse cases as was done in the Catholic Church all but impossible. Nevertheless, some of the sex abuse cases in other religious communities have been documented piecemeal.

In June 2007, the Associated Press revealed that three companies that insure the majority of Protestant churches in the US said they receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by clergy, church staff, volunteers or congregation members. Church Mutual Insurance Co., GuideOne Insurance Co. and Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co., which insure 165,495 churches for liability against child sex abuse, emphasized that their figures did not always specify which cases were against minors and added that not all allegations were followed by convictions or even investigations.

National surveys by Christian Ministry Resources (CMR), a tax and legal-advice publisher serving more than 75,000 congregations and 1,000 denominational agencies, has also issued a report that found that child-abuse allegations against American Protestant churches averaged 70 per week since 1993, with a slight downward trend starting in 1997. The same report also found that among Protestant churches, volunteers are more likely than clergy or paid staff to be abusers.

In 2002, Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, said in a sermon on Good Friday, “We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behaviour know no ecclesial or other boundaries.”

The John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States, found that between 1950 and 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests.

In 2002, at the height of the media frenzy over Catholic sex abuse cases, James Cobble, executive director of CMR, said that although the Catholic Church had received the most media attention, “this problem is even greater with the Protestant churches simply because of their far larger numbers.” Of the approximately 350,000 churches in the US, only 5 per cent are Catholic.
 
No, sorry, a pedophile by definition is only interested in pre-pubescent children. While it may be a crime for a 21 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, it’s not pedophilia. Consider that Canon Law allows girls 14 years old & boys 16 years old to marry.

We have to stop expanding these categories beyond their original meaning.
Thank you for providing some REASON.
 
No, sorry, a pedophile by definition is only interested in pre-pubescent children. While it may be a crime for a 21 year old to sleep with a 15 year old, it’s not pedophilia. Consider that Canon Law allows girls 14 years old & boys 16 years old to marry.

We have to stop expanding these categories beyond their original meaning.
This forum is about abusive priests not semantics.Still smarting over your chastisement for insulting me?Go argue by yourself you’ll get no further communication from me.I guess you know more than the vatican:

Sex Abuse in Catholic Church was Homosexual Problem, not Pedophilia: Vatican

TODAY’S HEADLINES | SEND NEWS TIPS | DONATE
SHARE: E-MAIL PRINT
Thank you for providing some REASON.
If you want to defend a peadophile, then that’s your problem not mine. And as for this point about the canon law allowing a 14 year old girl with a 16 year old boy, this is a matter of law in respect to which country you are in, not what religion you follow. As my priest puts it quite well; “Just because it’s within the law, that does not mean it is moral.”
 
Your post bearing false witness against me has been reported to the administrator(again)
 
False witness? Explain that then please. :rolleyes:
You accused me of defending paedophiles.

“If you want to defend a peadophile, then that’s your problem not mine”

I’d say thats a pretty classic case of bearing false witness or even libel and slander if one reviews my arguementation.Let’s let the forum administrator settle this dispute shall we? Like he/she did yesterday,when your insulting post was removed and you were subjected to board discipline.Remember?.
 
You accused me of defendind paedophiles.
Look below;
Originally Posted by Soutane
The term paedophile denotes abuse of little children,male or female
Originally Posted by Soutane
Quit calling them paedophiles-they are predatory homosexuals who victimize pubescent boys NOT toddlers.
…so, if you are not defending these priest, then what are you doing?

Personaly, I don’t understand why you feel such a strong need to tell us that they are not peadophiles even though they have abused children.

Are you pittying them? Do you feel bad for the priest? Well, you should, we all should. They are victims aswell, victims of satan. Peadophiles are in a terrible situation because what they get them selves into is a spiral that is nearly impossible to escape from.

But is someone has abused a child, then they are a peadophile.
 
Look below;

{…so, if you are not defending these priest, then what are you doing?

Personaly, I don’t understand why you feel such a strong need to tell us that they are not peadophiles even though they have abused children.

Are you pittying them? Do you feel bad for the priest? Well, you should, we all should. They are victims aswell, victims of satan. Peadophiles are in a terrible situation because what they get them selves into is a spiral that is nearly impossible to escape from.}

Calling someome a predatory homosexual is hardly defending them-"so, if you are not defending these priest, then what are you doing?’

I wish to be kind as these are Catholic fora.Is English not your first language?If that is the case that would explain your inability to follow my very clear logic and methodology of arguementation.An apology from you for accusing me of defending these miscreant "priests"will suffice to quell my outrage at being so slandered and libeled and I will withdraw my complaint to the forum administrator and subsequent request for your further chastisement.The choice is yours.I wouldn’t tarry if I were you.
 
Calling someome a predatory homosexual is hardly defending them-"so, if you are not defending these priest, then what are you doing?’

If that is the case that would explain your inability to follow my very clear logic and methodology of arguementation…
I wish to be kind as these are Catholic fora.
So this statement below is being kind?
Is English not your first language?
Well, Soutane…
An apology from you for accusing me of defending these miscreant "priests"will suffice to quell my outrage at being so slandered and libeled
Have I offended you, or actually hurt you? 🤷
and I will withdraw my complaint to the forum administrator
…you can’t do that, no one can.
…and subsequent request for your further chastisement.
Continue though, if you really feel that I have commited wrong.
The choice is yours. I wouldn’t tarry if I were you
Are you threatening me? 😃 That’s too cute!

xxXx jennifer xXxx
 
If you want to defend a peadophile, then that’s your problem not mine. And as for this point about the canon law allowing a 14 year old girl with a 16 year old boy, this is a matter of law in respect to which country you are in, not what religion you follow. As my priest puts it quite well; “Just because it’s within the law, that does not mean it is moral.”
Canon Law is the law of the Church. It allows the marriage of a 14 year old female to whomever she wants to marry as long as her parents consent and it allows a 16 year old male to do the same if it’s legal to do so where they live. Are you suggesting that the Church would allow something immoral?

This is not to defend anybody who abuses. But pedophelia is a psychiatric disorder that was defined long before priests started being accused.
 
Canon Law is the law of the Church. It allows the marriage of a 14 year old female to whomever she wants to marry as long as her parents consent and it allows a 16 year old male to do the same if it’s legal to do so where they live. Are you suggesting that the Church would allow something immoral?

This is not to defend anybody who abuses. But pedophelia is a psychiatric disorder that was defined long before priests started being accused.
I am telling you that a 14 year old girl cannot be married to anyone no matter what their age in this country because that is illeagle.
 
I am telling you that a 14 year old girl cannot be married to anyone no matter what their age in this country because that is illeagle.
I assume you’re in England and not London, Ontario, and that may well be the case in England. Here in Canada and in the US there are several states and provinces that will allow a 14 year old to get married if she’s pregnant. She may have to petition the court to do so, but it’s possible. New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina are just some of that States where that can occur. New Hampshire says brides must be 13.
 
I assume you’re in England and not London, Ontario, and that may well be the case in England. Here in Canada and in the US there are several states and provinces that will allow a 14 year old to get married if she’s pregnant. She may have to petition the court to do so, but it’s possible. New York, New Hampshire, North Carolina are just some of that States where that can occur. New Hampshire says brides must be 13.
…I live in London. Did you know that there is even a place in Asia that allows 9 year old girls to marry! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top