Rush Limbaughs take on the Catholic Abuse Scandal

[LilyM]

To borrow the words of a friend, “If the Bishops haven’t done it yet,” “the forces of the left” will not destroy the Church either.

Sounds like this is based on a similar, much older, joke.

If memory serves, when Napoleon took the Pope of his day prisoner, and expressed a desire to destroy the Church, the Pope replied ‘if our Cardinals haven’t managed it, neither will you!’

Of course the Church is still chugging along whereas Napoleon’s empire is dust and ashes.

 

[momor]

I think a big reason why the media goes after this story so hard is because people love to point out hypocrisy. Deep down most people saw the RCC as the moral leader in the world. The failings of the Church are naturally going to get much more attention than secular institutions that never had the moral authority to begin with.

 

[jpk1313]

Rush limbaugh once got a call from a charity asking him to donate some clothes for the starving people in africa. Rush said “**** *** anyone who can fit into my clothes is not starving!!!”

 

[csuliman]

Again, I was only making an observation. I didn’t even say that either of your points were invalid…just that it wasn’t a shock that you are disagreeing with Rush.

I’ll send you to the same therapist, once I find one to recommend to seekerz.

Oops, I might have mistook your intention, my apologies!!

 

[presidentjlh]

Rush limbaugh once got a call from a charity asking him to donate some clothes for the starving people in africa. Rush said “**** *** anyone who can fit into my clothes is not starving!!!”

The number of logical fallacies the quoted post has in it are innumerable.

 

[seekerz]

The number of logical fallacies the quoted post has in it are innumerable.

That’s even before applying the standards of Christian charity…I will pray for Rush, if that is in fact what he said, he certainly needs it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Rush:

What really is going on here is that the forces of the left are in the process of trying to tear down and destroy every institution in America that stands for something other than big government, other than liberal Democrats. The Catholic Church is despised by the left because of its abortion stance. It is despised because it is a religion other than the earth. It is a religion other than liberalism. So they’re full-court press in trying to discredit the church.

Princeton professor Robert George has made the same point in his works on the subject. Leftism and Catholicism are a clash of two opposing religions.

Personally, I wouldn’t lose sleep if every abusing priest and every enabling bishop were lined up against a wall and shot for what they did to innocence. I would sleep like a baby if the same behavior outside of the church met up with the same fate—not that they Left ever really focuses on the same behavior outside of the church as being much of an issue. Homosexual relationships between men who are not priests and teen-aged boys is not that unusual at all in society actually.

In the end though, there are two opposing religions at play here. Catholics are being called to make a choice of faiths here, between their faith in the left or their Catholic faith.

It’s a clash of orthodoxies.

 

[seekerz]

Homosexual relationships between men who are not priests and teen-aged boys is not that unusual at all in society actually.

And your point is? I will freely admit that I’m on a campaign to have the ‘homosexual theory’ apologists for the crisis, prove their views with numbers and definitions. Otherwise it seems to me just a case of double standards (redefining pedophilia, taking care not to use age cut-offs so as not to offend parents) or worse yet, an apology for NAMBLA.

 

[Darryl1958]

And your point is? I will freely admit that I’m on a campaign to have the ‘homosexual theory’ apologists for the crisis, prove their views with numbers and definitions. Otherwise it seems to me just a case of double standards (redefining pedophilia, taking care not to use age cut-offs so as not to offend parents) or worse yet, an apology for NAMBLA.

Actually, I think you made my point quite well for me thank you.

Because the subject of the Catholic Church “Child Abuse” Scandal keeps coming up, I am putting my analysis on this blog rather than constantly typing it into the blogs of others.

There are frequent questions and controversies over the so-called Child Abuse problem in the Catholic Church. The news coverage of these events is rarely sufficient, leaving a number of false impressions of the nature and extent of the problem.

It is important to understand the difference between abuse of pre-adolescent children and the abuse of adolescents. The abuse of pre-adolescent children is done by true pedophiles. The abuse of young men is done by pederasts who are homosexuals.

About 10% of the incidents involved pedophiles. 90% were committed by pederasts.

tinyvital.com/blog/2004/6/14/the-catholic-church-sex-abuse-scandal-facts-and-perspective/

 

[Darryl1958]

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1399042/posts

in the general population of males who sexually abuse minors, only one in seven molest boys. In the population of priests who sexually abuse minors, six in seven molest boys.23 Figure I graphically depicts the numbers of alleged victims of sexual abuse incidents, grouped by gender and age. One can clearly see the percentage of victims is overwhelmingly male.

Many experts have claimed that there is a much higher percentage of homosexuals in the priesthood than there is in the general population. Let us assume for a moment that the concentration of male homosexuals in the priesthood is four times greater than it is in the general population-about ten percent. Using the figures given in Table 3.5.4, we find that a homosexual priest is

(85.3%/10.0%)/(14.7%190.0%) = 52 I

times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

If we use the more reasonable assumption that five percent of all priests are homosexual ’ (still about twice the average in the general population), we see that a homosexual priest is

(85.3%/5.0%)1(14.7%/95.0%) = 110

times more likely to molest a child than a heterosexual priest.

It is well known (and logical) that homosexuals with a desire for young children purposefully seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most “promising” jobs of this nature include clergymen working in youth ministry, Boy Scout leaders and schoolteachers.

 

[Darryl1958]

The USCCB commissioned a study some time back on the statistics here. I have only come across a dead link to it thus far.

Edit: try these.
usccb.org:8765/query.html?col=&qt=pederastry&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go

< edit: a summary >

Church records indicate that 4,392 priests were accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.11 This number represents four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. There were approximately 10,667 reported minor victims of clergy sexual abuse during this period, and the Church expended more than half a billion dollars in dealing with the problem.

Eighty-one percent of the victims were male. Although more than three-quarters of the victims were of an age such that the conduct does not meet the clinical definition of pedophilia, there were substantial numbers of very young children who were victimized by priests during this time period. In addition, although many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse, there was also a very large number of allegations of more grave abuse, including acts of oral sex and intercourse.

The number of priests who engaged in sexual abuse of minors and the number of victims of that abuse changed dramatically during this time period. Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

The incidence of sexual molestation of a minor under eleven years of age did not vary as greatly throughout the period as did the incidence of molestation of older children. In addition, the incidence of abuse of females did not change as dramatically as did the incidence of abuse of males. There was, however, a more than six-fold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged eleven to seventeen between the 1950s and the 1970s.

Finally, the data indicate that the problem of sexual abuse of minors by priests affected all areas of the country, and not simply certain dioceses that have received sustained public scrutiny, but there was significant variation from diocese to diocese. Some dioceses, even certain large dioceses, had very few or no reported acts of sexual abuse whereas many other dioceses had twenty-five or more priests with accusations of sexual abuse of minors, and one diocese reported that 165 priests in the diocese had been accused of sexual abuse of minors.

 

[seekerz]

Actually, I think you made my point quite well for me thank you.

A point that you are yet to explain and support with data? I don’t think so.
Wishful thinking won’t make things true.

Edit: Ok, so I see you are discussing data. Let’s start with the clinical definition of pedophilia. Oh and by the way, does our Church also have a definition of pedophilia?