sexual abuse by protestant ministers

[TobyLue]

Recenltly, a policeman in southern Alabama/Northerwestern Florida (i am not sure which) was arrested and charged with 127 counts of child sexual assalt. Now, I live in Central Alabama. I never once heard or saw it covered in my local media. Had I not been there when he was arrested, I would not know about it. That is our point. 127 cases is as bad as any of the priests were accused of. Likewise, it is illogical that a man can be THAT bad and NO ONE knew about it. Yet, even the state media did not report it at all…

Raphinal - Maybe you can provide us with a little bit more information on these cases, if you have it or saw it.
How many millions was the police department or this city sued for by the victims/parents of victims? Was the police chief/mayor asked to step down? Where there people claiming the corruption of the police department/city council and claims that thoses office were corrupt and not true? Were references made that ALL policemen of that city and ALL officials of that city were all perverts?
Has anybody come forth to claim that they were abused by policemen from this same department some 50 years ago?
Whats good for goose is good for the gander…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Your item 1. What makes you think most Catholics don’t understand Papal infallibility? What is your understanding of it?

Once we clear that up, we can move onto other things in your post.

Twopekinguys, thanks for pointing that out. Using “most” was infelicitous. I should have used “many.” Judging by these forums, while many Roman Catholics can quote a correct definition, a culture of “the Pope can do no wrong” seems part and parcel of a good part of popular Roman Catholicism.

For what its worth, my understanding of Papal Infallibility is that when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and/or morals, he is speaking infallibly. Please correct me if I’m wrong! I don’t wish to exclude myself from criticism in anything!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[twopekinguys]

Grace & Peace!

Twopekinguys, thanks for pointing that out. Using “most” was infelicitous. I should have used “many.” Judging by these forums, while many Roman Catholics can quote a correct definition, a culture of “the Pope can do no wrong” seems part and parcel of a good part of popular Roman Catholicism.

For what its worth, my understanding of Papal Infallibility is that when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and/or morals, he is speaking infallibly. Please correct me if I’m wrong! I don’t wish to exclude myself from criticism in anything!

Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

You are correct in your definition. It is always good to start out with basic understanding of terms before anybody flies off the handle…lol

That being said, I would agree there are a percentage of people that bllindly follow the Pope, or the Magesterium, in all things, whether faith related or not. I don’t think it is a large percentage, but I’m sure there really isn’t any way to get accurate numbers on that.

Now, onto some of your other points.

The Catholic Church itself cannot fail. That doesn’t mean that the men running it can’t fail. The Church has survived, and will continue to survive in spite of man’s best efforts.

We have to keep in mind a couple of things.

1. The Pope is not only the leader of the Catholic church, he is a head of state. I put that out there because of your comment about questioning the Pope. I wasn’t sure if you were talking about spiritually, or civilly, or both.
2. With the current problems in Europe, we have to remember that Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Ratzinger. Therefore, he didn’t have Papal infallibility at that time.

So you see, he didn’t have the gift of infallibility.

We also have to take into consideration, that we are only hearing what the media is wanting to report. Accusations make better headlines than retractions, don’t you think?

Do you remember all of the hub bub over the accusations against Cardinal Bernadine of Chicago several years ago? It was all over the news for months and months. How much was covered when the guy who brought the allegations admitted he lied? How much attention was given to the fact that Cardinal Bernadine forgave him?

Remembering the US Priest scandal, there were alot of accusations, but very few convictions or settlements in comparison. Why do you think that is? Could it have been that some of the cases were not credible?

Accusations are worse than convictions these days. False accusations are rarely dealt with or reported by the media.

It is obvious that much of the mainstream media is not only anti-Catholic, they are anti-religion. On some level, I think that if they can bring down the Catholic Church, the rest will fall soon after.

The original point of this thread was to help some of our protestant brothers and sisters from jumping on the same bandwagon as the media, by realizing that these terrible things are happening all around us, in all walks of faith, and lifestyles, including their own faiths.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Twopekinguys, thanks for being willing to engage in discussion!

The Catholic Church itself cannot fail. That doesn’t mean that the men running it can’t fail. The Church has survived, and will continue to survive in spite of man’s best efforts.

I certainly agree with you! But I also believe our ecclesiologies are slightly different, so we may in fact be talking about two similar, but not identical things. Here’s what I mean:

I generally make a distinction between the Catholic Church (by which I understand the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) and the Roman Catholic Church. I understand making such a distinction is not smiled upon by Roman Catholics. I mean no offense when I make it, but I am utterly convinced and believe that the Catholic Church includes all denominations, the whole Body of Christ. And the Catholic Church will not fail.

That having been said, I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church will fail either. So that’s not so much my point or concern.

My concern is this–given the tendency in Roman Catholicism to identify the Church with the hierarchy, I wonder if it’s possible for Roman Catholics to imagine a Roman Catholic Church that has an administrative structure different from the one that it has now. I’m not talking about getting rid of Bishops, Priests, Deacons or even the Pope. Just: is it possible to imagine the Roman Catholic Church with a different administrative structure–one that is, perhaps, more lay-inclusive; one that is less-centralized or more collegiate (such as the Orthodox claim to have)–and for the Roman Catholic faithful to still be able to say: yes! That’s the Roman Catholic Church?

Here’s another way of asking the question: To what extent is the Roman Catholic understanding of its administrative authority/structure synonymous with a Roman Catholic’s understanding of the Church, and is it possible for that understanding to change if it is discovered that the current structure is damaged, untenable, or otherwise in need of reform? Or, even if there was a need for structural reform, is structural reform all but impossible given a belief that what the Roman Catholic Church looks like now is simply what the Church *is–*and must therefore be what it always has been (despite what some would say is the evidence of history to the contrary) and always will be?

In other words, if a structural change were necessary, but inconvient or unwanted, even by the Pope*…*could it be accomplished, and how?

Please note that I’m not saying that a structural change is necessary. But I will be honest about my biases: the question assumes that things like the Reformation can in fact be seen as works of the Holy Ghost–granted it’s a pretty easy assumption to make for someone considering himself part of a Reformed Catholic Church. And I don’t ask the question glibly. I think it’s an important question, related to this scandal, and has a bearing on ecumenical dialogue between Rome and Constantinople (and less importantly, Rome and Canterbury), in addition to being a personal question that has always prevented me from seriously considering swimming the Tiber.

1. The Pope is not only the leader of the Catholic church, he is a head of state. I put that out there because of your comment about questioning the Pope. I wasn’t sure if you were talking about spiritually, or civilly, or both.

I may have been unconsciously getting at all the above, but for the purposes of this discussion am more concerned with questioning the Pope in his administrative capacity as head of the Roman Catholic Church invested with Universal Ordinary Authority over the entire Roman Catholic Church.

1. With the current problems in Europe, we have to remember that Pope Benedict XVI, was Cardinal Ratzinger. Therefore, he didn’t have Papal infallibility at that time.

So you see, he didn’t have the gift of infallibility.

I don’t think Papal Infallibility could be invoked in a circumstance which is primarily a question of making a good or bad administrative choice–so I don’t think whether or not he had it at the time is germaine. But given our discussion regarding misunderstandings of infallibility…it does concern me that you brought it up…(?)

We also have to take into consideration, that we are only hearing what the media is wanting to report. Accusations make better headlines than retractions, don’t you think?

I don’t think media should be consumed without question. Nor do I think it can be ignored. There are definitely biases, and the way the current news-cycle is structured, sensationalism will always win out over actual content, and status quo thinking will generally be encouraged.

It is obvious that much of the mainstream media is not only anti-Catholic, they are anti-religion. On some level, I think that if they can bring down the Catholic Church, the rest will fall soon after.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. While I do believe that there are biases, I don’t know there’s room for such an agenda when the guiding principle is really one of entertainment and spectacle–the spectacle of news or information. I don’t know that there’s much room within that for much of a concerted anti-Roman Catholic scheme–or any sort of scheme, for that matter.

Thanks again!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[twopekinguys]

Grace & Peace!

Twopekinguys, thanks for being willing to engage in discussion!

I certainly agree with you! But I also believe our ecclesiologies are slightly different, so we may in fact be talking about two similar, but not identical things. Here’s what I mean:

I generally make a distinction between the Catholic Church (by which I understand the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) and the Roman Catholic Church. I understand making such a distinction is not smiled upon by Roman Catholics. I mean no offense when I make it, but I am utterly convinced and believe that the Catholic Church includes all denominations, the whole Body of Christ. And the Catholic Church will not fail.

That having been said, I don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church will fail either. So that’s not so much my point or concern.

My concern is this–given the tendency in Roman Catholicism to identify the Church with the hierarchy, I wonder if it’s possible for Roman Catholics to imagine a Roman Catholic Church that has an administrative structure different from the one that it has now. I’m not talking about getting rid of Bishops, Priests, Deacons or even the Pope. Just: is it possible to imagine the Roman Catholic Church with a different administrative structure–one that is, perhaps, more lay-inclusive; one that is less-centralized or more collegiate (such as the Orthodox claim to have)–and for the Roman Catholic faithful to still be able to say: yes! That’s the Roman Catholic Church?

Here’s another way of asking the question: To what extent is the Roman Catholic understanding of its administrative authority/structure synonymous with a Roman Catholic’s understanding of the Church, and is it possible for that understanding to change if it is discovered that the current structure is damaged, untenable, or otherwise in need of reform? Or, even if there was a need for structural reform, is structural reform all but impossible given a belief that what the Roman Catholic Church looks like now is simply what the Church *is–*and must therefore be what it always has been (despite what some would say is the evidence of history to the contrary) and always will be?

In other words, if a structural change were necessary, but inconvient or unwanted, even by the Pope*…*could it be accomplished, and how?

Please note that I’m not saying that a structural change is necessary. But I will be honest about my biases: the question assumes that things like the Reformation can in fact be seen as works of the Holy Ghost–granted it’s a pretty easy assumption to make for someone considering himself part of a Reformed Catholic Church. And I don’t ask the question glibly. I think it’s an important question, related to this scandal, and has a bearing on ecumenical dialogue between Rome and Constantinople (and less importantly, Rome and Canterbury), in addition to being a personal question that has always prevented me from seriously considering swimming the Tiber.

I’m not trying to be flippant here, but why change it? After all, it is modeled after Christ and the Apostles. The Pope being the the Vicar of Christ, and the Magesterium being the Apostles. (Notice I said “modeled”, and not an exact replication)

One of the drawbacks I see with the “administrative” type of approach is that when you get into that type of structure, it is too easy for heresy to creep in. Too much independence. Keeping a central control helps eliminate that.

Given the religous climate of the world today, we saw alot of people moving away from a central authority. Primarily in the evangelical sects. People seem to be of the mind that no one can interpret scripture better than themselves. That is one of the reason there are so many religious denominations and non-denominationals out there. (I’m not even going close to the whole 30,000 plus thing.) When these people start their own churches based on their own interpretations, they stray further and further from the truth as a whole.
I may have been unconsciously getting at all the above, but for the purposes of this discussion am more concerned with questioning the Pope in his administrative capacity as head of the Roman Catholic Church invested with Universal Ordinary Authority over the entire Roman Catholic Church.

Basically, we have seen a trend toward people finding a “church” that fits into their own predetermined requirements, instead of fitting into Christ’s requirements. Although, more recent numbers are finding that people are leaving the more evangelical free thought on scripture type churches, and going back to more traditional churches with structure.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t think Papal Infallibility could be invoked in a circumstance which is primarily a question of making a good or bad administrative choice–so I don’t think whether or not he had it at the time is germaine. But given our discussion regarding misunderstandings of infallibility…it does concern me that you brought it up…(?)

I’m sure I didn’t make it clear, but what i was going for was any decisions that Benedict would have made while he was Cardinal Ratzinger, regarding the moral issue of abuse, would not have been considered infallible. Basically, I was waiting for someone to say “Isn’t the abuse a moral issue”. I may have jumped the gun there.

I don’t think media should be consumed without question. Nor do I think it can be ignored. There are definitely biases, and the way the current news-cycle is structured, sensationalism will always win out over actual content, and status quo thinking will generally be encouraged.

Bingo!!! We have a Winner!! That is what I have been saying all along. However, many people don’t see it that way. Many still believe that if it is in/on the news, then thats all they need to know. We are definitely on the same page with this.

I wouldn’t go quite that far. While I do believe that there are biases, I don’t know there’s room for such an agenda when the guiding principle is really one of entertainment and spectacle–the spectacle of news or information. I don’t know that there’s much room within that for much of a concerted anti-Roman Catholic scheme–or any sort of scheme, for that matter.

Thanks again!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I guess we’ll have to somewhat agree to disagree here. I do believe that the majority of the mainstream media is against any form of organized religion, no matter which one it is. I believe it is easier for them to go after the RCC than other denominations because it is so much larger than the others. Hence, a bigger target for them.

I may be showing my age here, but I remember when John F. Kennedy was elected president, and all of the anti-Catholic things in the media, like: “Is he going to take orders from the Pope”, “Will the Pope be running the White House”

It is even evident in our own government.

“On March 23, 2000, the Speaker of the House appointed the first Roman Catholic
House chaplain, Father Daniel P. Coughlin, to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation
of Rev. James Ford, who had served as House chaplain since January 1979. Rev. Charles
C. Pise, the only Catholic priest to be elected Senate chaplain, served for one year (1833).”
lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/House_and_Senate_Chaplains.pdf
I remember all the hub bub in the press about this too.

With the media constantly turning things into a specatacle, and sensationalizing everything, it does ultimately become an agenda for them. Whether they realize it or not.

I would like to go back and address something though.

I may have been unconsciously getting at all the above, but for the purposes of this discussion am more concerned with questioning the Pope in his administrative capacity as head of the Roman Catholic Church invested with Universal Ordinary Authority over the entire Roman Catholic Church.

While I am not part of the Pope’s inner circle, or a Cardinal that interacts with him, I am sure some of his decisions or actions are questioned to a degree. If for no other reason that to make sure the course of action is the correct one, and presented correctly.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Although, more recent numbers are finding that people are leaving the more evangelical free thought on scripture type churches, and going back to more traditional churches with structure.

In our area it is exactly the opposite with the traditional mainline churches loosing members who want to have a deeper walk with Christ…We have some Catholics, Methodist’s and people from other denominations coming…We have almost tripled our congregation over the last few years…

 

[twopekinguys]

In our area it is exactly the opposite with the traditional mainline churches loosing members who want to have a deeper walk with Christ…We have some Catholics, Methodist’s and people from other denominations coming…We have almost tripled our congregation over the last few years…

I’m sure there are variances on a regional basis, but this study took into consideration the entire United States.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I noticed something. A day before this was posted there was a post about the priests molesting children. Now that post has been take off and this one is still on. Why? Is there a double standard. We don’t want a discussion about what the priests done but its alright of discuss what protestant ministers have done. Lets slam the protestant ministers but not the priests. Seems like a double standard to me.

Of course there is two sets of rules; one for the guests and the ones for the supporters & Catholics; wouldn’t you expect the same from a Christian Forum such as 'ChristianForums.net"?

 

[who0Oshhh]

Hey, just a thought. Am I allowed to start a thread about sexual abuse by Catholic priests? I have plenty of material to talk about. Is that cool, or are we only allowed to talk about sex crimes when Protestants do it? I mean, it is a Catholic site, so I get that we’re not pretending it’s neutral territory. Still though, how do I find out what’s allowed from my end?

Oh, I should probably respond to the OP. Of the 838 Protestant ministers mentioned, how many of them carried out their sex abuse over the course of 20 or 30 years? In multiple states or countries? And spent the large majority of that time doing so with the full knowledge and complete inaction of their peers and superiors?

Lawrence Murphy is the latest name to come to light. He molested as many as 200 young boys at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1950 to 1974. That’s the one that’s all over the news right now.

Look, every group is going to have some bad apples. You’re going to have some people who transgress. You can’t really control that.

What you can control, though, is the way in which you respond to it.

“Faith,” said Pope Benedict XVI on Palm Sunday, “prevents being intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.” That was his most recent response. His initial response, of course, came back in the 90’s when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, then the Vatican official in charge of abuse cases, and ordered that the case be dropped when it was briefly reopened. youtube.com/watch?v=gm5mt2MDQd4

But back to his most recent response. Allow me to clarify something- that being the difference between “petty gossip” and “not petty gossip.”

This is an example of petty gossip: “Hey, did you notice that the pope got a new hat?” That’s petty gossip.
Here’s another one: “I told Father Murphy it would be a good move to get a hybrid but he didn’t listen to me- I wonder who talked him out of it?” That’s petty gossip.
Here’s one more: “They guy who always comes to mass and sits down the pew from me has a really enormous Adam’s apple and he kneels kind of funny.” That’s petty gossip.

Are you starting to get the idea? That’s petty gossip. You want an example of something that’s not petty gossip?

“Hey, you remember that guy who molested 200 deaf boys? We knew he was doing it and didn’t do anything. Yeah, he still works here.” That is not petty gossip.

The fact that the Pope referred to it as such is…hilarious. Well, it’s funny for me. I don’t think it’s quite as funny for you.

I’m not upset about this. I’m laughing. It’s funny because it’s not my problem. The thing that absolutely mystifies me, though, is your attitude about all of this. You have a serious problem, and it has nothing to do with the number or percentage of priests/bishops/archbishops that molest kids and abuse them in other ways. It has to do with the fact that Catholic leadership, from the top down, has consistently made it so that ordained positions in the Catholic Church are the safest places in the world for a pedophile to be.

Again, your problem. Not mine.

Me? I’m over here laughing about it.

You? I guess you’re looking up Protestant ministers who are also sex offenders. But you’re missing the point. You really are.

 

[twopekinguys]

Hey, just a thought. Am I allowed to start a thread about sexual abuse by Catholic priests? I have plenty of material to talk about. Is that cool, or are we only allowed to talk about sex crimes when Protestants do it? I mean, it is a Catholic site, so I get that we’re not pretending it’s neutral territory. Still though, how do I find out what’s allowed from my end?

Oh, I should probably respond to the OP. Of the 838 Protestant ministers mentioned, how many of them carried out their sex abuse over the course of 20 or 30 years? In multiple states or countries? And spent the large majority of that time doing so with the full knowledge and complete inaction of their peers and superiors?

Lawrence Murphy is the latest name to come to light. He molested as many as 200 young boys at St. John’s School for the Deaf from 1950 to 1974. That’s the one that’s all over the news right now.

Look, every group is going to have some bad apples. You’re going to have some people who transgress. You can’t really control that.

What you can control, though, is the way in which you respond to it.

“Faith,” said Pope Benedict XVI on Palm Sunday, “prevents being intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.” That was his most recent response. His initial response, of course, came back in the 90’s when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, then the Vatican official in charge of abuse cases, and ordered that the case be dropped when it was briefly reopened. youtube.com/watch?v=gm5mt2MDQd4

But back to his most recent response. Allow me to clarify something- that being the difference between “petty gossip” and “not petty gossip.”

This is an example of petty gossip: “Hey, did you notice that the pope got a new hat?” That’s petty gossip.
Here’s another one: “I told Father Murphy it would be a good move to get a hybrid but he didn’t listen to me- I wonder who talked him out of it?” That’s petty gossip.
Here’s one more: “They guy who always comes to mass and sits down the pew from me has a really enormous Adam’s apple and he kneels kind of funny.” That’s petty gossip.

Are you starting to get the idea? That’s petty gossip. You want an example of something that’s not petty gossip?

“Hey, you remember that guy who molested 200 deaf boys? We knew he was doing it and didn’t do anything. Yeah, he still works here.” That is not petty gossip.

The fact that the Pope referred to it as such is…hilarious. Well, it’s funny for me. I don’t think it’s quite as funny for you.

I’m not upset about this. I’m laughing. It’s funny because it’s not my problem. The thing that absolutely mystifies me, though, is your attitude about all of this. You have a serious problem, and it has nothing to do with the number or percentage of priests/bishops/archbishops that molest kids and abuse them in other ways. It has to do with the fact that Catholic leadership, from the top down, has consistently made it so that ordained positions in the Catholic Church are the safest places in the world for a pedophile to be.

Again, your problem. Not mine.

Me? I’m over here laughing about it.

You? I guess you’re looking up Protestant ministers who are also sex offenders. But you’re missing the point. You really are.

First I would suggest that you read the forum rules for proper behavior, and what is allowed, and not allowed to be posted. There is a link at the top of most pages.

Second, look around at the different forums on CAF, there are plenty of threads about the abuse situation.

Third, this particular thread is not about the Catholic abuses, it is about protestant ministers.

 

[ConfusedTim]

Another example of problems elsewhere…

A former house master at a prestigious Brisbane private school is on trial for the alleged sexual abuse of a student 40 years ago.

Harry John Wippell, 73, has pleaded not guilty to five counts of indecent treatment of a boy under the age of 16, between 1966 and 1967, at the Anglican Church Grammar School, also known as Churchie.

It is alleged Wippell abused the boy between the ages 13 to 15, while the teenager was a boarder.

A jury was empaneled in the Brisbane District Court today, and three witnesses have been called to give evidence, including the alleged victim, now aged 57, a police officer and a former student.

brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/former-churchie-house-master-faces-child-sex-abuse-charges-20100412-s38e.html

 

[jen_fla]

Is this like a thing on this forum? Every single generalization about Catholic is decried as malicious and false? Can’t I just throw out some common defenses I have seen and say “Hey, these aren’t a good idea!”

what is generally a “thing on this forum” is honest communication between members, so please understand that if you are going to post accusations towards Catholics (or anyone for that matter), then you need to 1. quote the person you are accusing and 2. back up your accusations

This seemed like as good a place to post it as any, since this whole tread is predicated on the idea that “See, Protestants do it too! People are so mean for ganging up on the Catholics.” I even clarified myself and said I wasn’t talking about most Catholics.

Zach

i am really sorry you do not understand the words i write.

peace.

 

[jen_fla]

Grace & Peace!

I think that, to be fair to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, we have to recognize a variety of tensions which are exacerbating some sensibilities here…
**
CUT SHORT DUE TO LENGHT RESTRTCTIONS**

hi mark.

i am sorry that i can not give proper attention to this intelligent post you made. i am taking a break from this thread for unrelated reasons, but i will say though, that while i do agree with you that many Catholics do not fully understand what papal infallibility means, most know that the Pope indeed can sin. i think it is our non-Catholic friends that have the largest misunderstandings about our beliefs, but i could be wrong.

that being said, given that almost every article in the mainstream news i have ever read or heard regarding the CC has been full of half truths or twisted information, i am willing to take the time to further delve into the rest of the facts when it come to Pope Benedict. as each article comes out, i regret at this moment i don’t have the time to go point by point like an attorney to uncover a better picture of what has happened.

even so, the CC has had some deplorable Popes in the past, and yet that in no way shakes my faith that the CC truly is the one founded by Christ. i look forward to reading more of your comments when i find some time.

peace!

 

[jen_fla]

Okay, has any action been taken against those in the Milwaukee diocese who knew about Mr Murphy before 1990s and did nothing but move him around?​

Good to see that 2009 has a drop in problems. Glad all this is coming to light. I’m sure that when sin is exposed and dealt with properly, sinners think twice before acting.

hi dokimas.

sorry it has taken me so long to get back to this. i think the articles below can give you some of the information you seek.

article

and to throw this in to the data pile, the attorney anderson that gave all the information to the ny times (which he apparently has been sitting on since 2008) wasn’t your average attorney. it just strikes me odd that a professional journalist or paper that claims to be would not have included this fact:

*"When it comes to suing the Church, he is America’s leading plaintiff’s attorney. Back in 2002, he told the Associated Press that he’d won more than $60 million in settlements from the Church, and he once boasted to a Twin Cities weekly that he’s 'suing the s–t out of them everywhere.’"

McGurn also charged that the Times did not report the “salient fact” that Anderson is now trying to sue the Vatican in U.S. federal court. *

The Pope and the New York Times

i really wish people like jon stewart would take the time to do better research when they are going to bring up this topic on their shows.

ok, i really need to take a break from this thread. nice chatting with you though!

peace!

 

[joe_clark]

according to this data, this issue is even worse in our public school systems.

another interesting report done in 2004.

The issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Indeed, it shows that family members are the most likely to sexually molest a child. It also shows that the incidence of the sexual abuse of a minor is slightly higher among the Protestant clergy than among the Catholic clergy, and that it is significantly higher among public school teachers than among ministers and priests.

In a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests frequently abused children.[xxxix] This is outrageously unfair, but it is not surprising given the media fixation on this issue. While it would be unfair to blame the media for the scandal in the Catholic Church, the constant drumbeat of negative reporting surely accounts for these remarkably skewed results.[xl]

report found here

I agree with the issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Abuse is widespread and percentages become irellevant especially to the victims. The title here should focus on our own house sexual abuse by clergy in our house. I fear for my church and I pray for truth and peace.

Splitting hairs and taking an accounting on whether the child abused was over the age of 16 or under…a teen or a tween? If the young victime was 16 or over well that’s homosexuality…This my good friends sounds insane? There are many cases were the child was abused at a young age of 9 and the abuse continued into the victims adulthood. So is this pedophilia that magically changes to homosexuality? Given this circumstance, does it matter? The victim is still a victim. The spin attempted that “The homos” did it and we should start the witch hunt any time soon? When an adult male or female molests an 8-9-10 year old child, this is not homosexuality, this is pedophilia. The everything homo angle is being used as an attempt to deflect and evade responsibility of ones self as a human being. There appears to be in this, an attempt to minimize the gravity toward the priests and the church.

The point the Vatican keeps missing is that people are outraged at the overseers, not just the predators. The predators maybe sick and mentally unbalanced, so what’s the story on the overseerers?? We don’t expect predators to behave themselves, but we do (or did) expect clergy who knew of abuse to report it.

The rationale of hiding abuse ‘for the good of the Church’ was a terrible prudential judgment—who now thinks that was ‘best for the Church’? It has proved a nightmare for the Church, and an avoidable one at that. I fear they will continue to dig a hole that they will not be able to climb out of.

 

[Hiskid1973]

The point the Vatican keeps missing is that people are outraged at the overseers, not just the predators. The predators maybe sick and mentally unbalanced, so what’s the story on the overseerers?? We don’t expect predators to behave themselves, but we do (or did) expect clergy who knew of abuse to report it.

The rationale of hiding abuse ‘for the good of the Church’ was a terrible prudential judgment—who now thinks that was ‘best for the Church’? It has proved a nightmare for the Church, and an avoidable one at that. I fear they will continue to dig a hole that they will not be able to climb out of.

QFT.

 

[Paulfrank]

I agree with the issue of child sexual molestation is deserving of serious scholarship. Too often, assumptions have been made that this problem is worse in the Catholic clergy than in other sectors of society. This report does not support this conclusion. Abuse is widespread and percentages become irellevant especially to the victims.

I couldn’t agree more. I work in the public school system to make sure that employee sexual misconduct doesn’t occur, and I am appalled with how often I work with teachers and other employees who have crossed the line with students.

And sexual misconduct is an epidemic in the school system, with a few studies showing that 1 in 10 students report employee sexual misconduct by an employee sometime between 8-12 grade.

The problem is ubiquitous and in every sector that works with children. The difference is in how an organization-secular or not–deals with these abuse/misconduct when they think it has occurred and what their doing in the long run to protect children.

 

[grace_singh]

I couldn’t agree more. I work in the public school system to make sure that employee sexual misconduct doesn’t occur, and I am appalled with how often I work with teachers and other employees who have crossed the line with students.

And sexual misconduct is an epidemic in the school system, with a few studies showing that 1 in 10 students report employee sexual misconduct by an employee sometime between 8-12 grade.

The problem is ubiquitous and in every sector that works with children. The difference is in how an organization-secular or not–deals with these abuse/misconduct when they think it has occurred and what their doing in the long run to protect children.

yes, but there are less frequently mass conspirocies within the public school system to protect offending teachers, keep the abused children or youths quiet, and re-asign the offending teacher to a new school district.

i remember tons of cases of inappropriate behavior or relationships going on between teachers and students when i was in junior high and high school. in fact it was kind of epidemic.

the thing was, when one of these guys was caught with a student, they were fired. end of story, end of their career in the local and probably national school system. there was no excusing the teachers or pointing out “well, look at all the abuse that goes on in private schools! it’s the same if not worse!” such a statistic does nothing to address the issue then-facing the school, and would have never come up.

it’s not just about abuse. or statistics. it’s about these Catholic priests, who are supposed to be Godly, pure, loving, chaste, and selfless shepherds, taking sexual advantage of children and teenagers, and then being shuffled from parish to parish by their superiors. generally no one going to the police, warning any of the parents, or responding with appropriate alarm and haste.

that’s the issue. it’s not abuse in general, it’s abuse within the Church, and the unique hypocrisy and horror of not only the abuse, but of how it was handled.

 

[tweetymom]

yes, but there are less frequently mass conspirocies within the public school system to protect offending teachers, keep the abused children or youths quiet, and re-asign the offending teacher to a new school district.

i remember tons of cases of inappropriate behavior or relationships going on between teachers and students when i was in junior high and high school. in fact it was kind of epidemic.

the thing was, when one of these guys was caught with a student, they were fired. end of story, end of their career in the local and probably national school system. there was no excusing the teachers or pointing out “well, look at all the abuse that goes on in private schools! it’s the same if not worse!” such a statistic does nothing to address the issue then-facing the school, and would have never come up.

it’s not just about abuse. or statistics. it’s about these Catholic priests, who are supposed to be Godly, pure, loving, chaste, and selfless shepherds, taking sexual advantage of children and teenagers, and then being shuffled from parish to parish by their superiors. generally no one going to the police, warning any of the parents, or responding with appropriate alarm and haste.

that’s the issue. it’s not abuse in general, it’s abuse within the Church, and the unique hypocrisy and horror of not only the abuse, but of how it was handled.

Thank you for such a great post. Agreed 100%