[subego]

The movie pitch I heard is a meteor lands on the Vatican, killing all the Cardinals.

This leaves O'Brien as the only one alive who can pick the next Pope.

And he's holding a grudge.


This summer...

Andrew Dice Clay is ASSHOLE POPE

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

The movie pitch I heard is a meteor lands on the Vatican, killing all the Cardinals.

This leaves O'Brien as the only one alive who can pick the next Pope.

And he's holding a grudge.


This summer...

Andrew Dice Clay is ASSHOLE POPE

That's good. Put that together and send me a script and prospectus.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

How do I put this? Ratzinger = Penn State

All this feigned outrage for child sexual abuse. Why stop at the Catholic Church?

In 2004, Shakeshaft published Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature for the United States Department of Education. The report indicated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, had been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse.

US Dept of Education and the NEA = Penn State

[subego]

Forgive me if I hold the person who speaks directly for God to a higher standard.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this feigned outrage for child sexual abuse. Why stop at the Catholic Church?

Same reason Christians tend to catch more shit than Jews from atheists. You're not 'hated' or 'persecuted' more, you're just that much more prominent because you're that much larger.

I mean, how awful that Ratzinger is getting called out in a thread about Ratzinger. I didn't realize I need to give pedo protectors shit equally.

[subego]

And even in all your feigned outrage, you still managed to let "Penn State" slip.

Can you bring your A-game next time?

[subego]

I do think ebuddy has a point. When looking for a way to show MSM bias, the fact the church gets always gets nailed for this and our education system doesn't usually convinces people.

I had to learn that tidbit about our education system from ****ing Doofy. If you don't call that a failure of our media, I don't know what is. I still feel embarrassed about it.


That said, you won't find me running interference for the church. The "feigned outrage" comment is just as disingenuous as saying "Ratzinger likes pedophiles".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I do think ebuddy has a point. When looking for a way to show MSM bias, the fact the church gets always gets nailed for this and our education system doesn't usually convinces people.

Ok, but I'm being faulted for the failings of the MSM? ebuddy's implies people in this thread have an axe to grind, but him trying to shift outrage to the US Govt. strikes me as equally biased.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Ok, but I'm being faulted for the failings of the MSM? ebuddy's implies people in this thread have an axe to grind, but him trying to shift outrage to the US Govt. strikes me as equally biased.

Put away the claws, Tiger.

I agree with you. This is why I pointed out:

1) The RCC has a single, infallible leader.

2) You actually did bring up education.

3) ebuddy's statement was disingenuous.

[The Final Dakar]

That's wasn't directed at you, per se. Just general incredulousness. I'm used to the rationalizations for bitching about politician a lying but not politician b, but have we come to the point where we can't call a spade a spade for fear of being religiously biased?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

we can't call a spade a spade

Racist.

Reported.

[Shaddim]

I dislike the RCC, but I do understand their situation. They find out about the pedophiles from confession, more often than not, and by Church law they cannot discuss confession/penance subjects outside of the episcopate (technically outside of the confessional itself). That is Canon law, not something as simple as Church policy, or even Church rule. So, that binds their hands, so to speak. When such things do reach the hierarchy, usually the confessor will tell the confessed that part of his penance is to bring his crime before the ruling bishop, or even the authorities. However, that's rarely the case, most of the time a portion of the punishment that's exacted is a transfer to a place without kids... but since the confessor can't divulge the priest's sin to another, often that same pedophile priest is moved to another posting later on that has kids.

It's a vicious cycle. Recently the Church law dealing with child molesters changed, now all confessors that hear of such actions from a fellow member of the clergy must tell the confessed to present his sin to the region's Cardinal. Well, that's kind of backfired, because now some members of the clergy won't confess, or will choose a secret confessor that will not "rat them out", so the elders and authorities never find out about the molestations at all. It's a tangled web that's been weaved, but it largely isn't about deception, it's about a knotted mess of a system that they haven't figured out how to untangle.

[subego]

You can act on what you hear in confession?

If someone confesses themselves to be a molester, you can use that information to move them?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can act on what you hear in confession?

If someone confesses themselves to be a molester, you can use that information to move them?

Yes, it's been done for decades.

[subego]

I know it's done. The question is what does the confessor instruction booklet say to do?

Edit: I mean about directly acting upon something you hear in confession.

[subego]

I always assumed there was some sort of prime directive type thing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Forgive me if I hold the person who speaks directly for God to a higher standard.

You believe the Pope speaks directly for God? Isn't that odd for a Lutheran? Or did you just try a Lutheran service to find out it was less fear-driven than the Catholic Church? I think the pedestal just gets higher when it's useful for ripping something down.

IMO, there are very important philosophical and often political differences between Catholics and non-Catholics, but make no mistake; the concerns here have nothing to do with institutional child sexual abuse. People express problems with the Catholic faith and its tenets, I get that. That's fair. I get tired of the importance of citing the connection between Catholicism and child sexual abuse whenever possible be it a discussion on Church, churches, priests, children, pedophilia, or sexual abuse; as if the ills should be their prevailing identity. If it should be, well then it should also be for teachers and the US Department of Education, but you will not find this connection made so liberally. It can't be a concern for child sexual abuse or it would be a regular citation in any discussion on the other Institution deemed necessary for children -- the one that produces a rate of child sexual abuse that should be staggering to anyone this sensitive.

Or maybe it's just damned impolite to repeatedly slander people or Institutions that otherwise do a great deal of good for nothing more than philosophical reasons.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I always assumed there was some sort of prime directive type thing.

The point of confession is receive atonement, they've been directed that part of that atonement is for the confessed to report their sin to the ruling Cardinal for further guidance and so that it can be reported to the authorities. Like I said, that's kind of backfiring on them, because some confessors believe that the confession takes precedence over reporting the offense, there's a bit of a schism over this in the RCC right now.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You believe the Pope speaks directly for God? Isn't that odd for a Lutheran? Or did you just try a Lutheran service to find out it was less fear-driven than the Catholic Church? I think the pedestal just gets higher when it's useful for ripping something down.

IMO, there are very important philosophical and often political differences between Catholics and non-Catholics, but make no mistake; the concerns here have nothing to do with institutional child sexual abuse. People express problems with the Catholic faith and its tenets, I get that. That's fair. I get tired of the importance of citing the connection between Catholicism and child sexual abuse whenever possible be it a discussion on Church, churches, priests, children, pedophilia, or sexual abuse; as if the ills should be their prevailing identity. If it should be, well then it should also be for teachers and the US Department of Education, but you will not find this connection made so liberally. It can't be a concern for child sexual abuse or it would be a regular citation in any discussion on the other Institution deemed necessary for children -- the one that produces a rate of child sexual abuse that should be staggering to anyone this sensitive.

Or maybe it's just damned impolite to repeatedly slander people or Institutions that otherwise do a great deal of good for nothing more than philosophical reasons.

What are these repeated slanders? Perhaps I owe the church an apology. As snarky as that comes off in print, I mean that 100% honestly.

Most of my family is Catholic, but one of my great aunts drifted to Lutheran. She had a Catholic-sized family despite that, so I've had plenty of obligations to go to Lutheran services.

My old boss was an evangelical Christian, and through work I've been to Baptist services. I have no opinion on evangelicals from work, though I have an opinion of how he was as a boss.

I don't really no what I am personally. The (significant) part of me which finds atheism too nihilistic is 50% trust no one (not even myself) Gnostic, and the other 50% just makes stuff up and pretends its happy with the delusion.


Edit: Lord have mercy on that utter disaster of a last paragraph. Eesh.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The point of confession is receive atonement, they've been directed that part of that atonement is for the confessed to report their sin to the ruling Cardinal for further guidance and so that it can be reported to the authorities. Like I said, that's kind of backfiring on them, because some confessors believe that the confession takes precedence over reporting the offense, there's a bit of a schism over this in the RCC right now.

Well, that sounds like you're not supposed to take direct action, and it also sounds like you're saying the people who believe you can take direct action believe in taking action more aggressive than shuffling them to another parish... ministry... I'm not up on the lingo.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't really no what I am personally. The (significant) part of me which finds atheism too nihilistic is 50% trust no one (not even myself) Gnostic, and the other 50% just makes stuff up and pretends its happy with the delusion.

So... to be clear, you don't believe the pope speaks directly for God after all.

[subego]

Me personally? No.

I'm not sure why that matters though. It's what he believes if he holds true to church doctrine.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

All this feigned outrage for child sexual abuse. Why stop at the Catholic Church?

In 2004, Shakeshaft published Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature for the United States Department of Education. The report indicated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, had been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse.

US Dept of Education and the NEA = Penn State

Because the Catholic Church believes they have the moral authority on anything related to sex and marriage.

Duh!

If the US Dept of Education and teachers claim to the moral authority on everything related to sex and marriage, then the US Dept of Education deserves as much criticism. The US Dept of Education doesn't keep telling me it's morally wrong to use a condom, to masturbate, to have pre-marital sex, or engage in sodomy/oral sex.


Maybe if the Catholic Church or any other church stop claiming to have the moral authority on sex and marriage, they will get less criticism when they are proven to be immoral by their own standards.

Can't have it both ways.

If the church wants to criticize others for sexual immorality, they deserve just as much if not more criticism for their sexual immorality.

As mentioned in the Bible: Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because the Catholic Church believes they have the moral authority on anything related to sex and marriage.

Duh!

If the US Dept of Education and teachers claim to the moral authority on everything related to sex and marriage, then the US Dept of Education deserves as much criticism. The US Dept of Education doesn't keep telling me it's morally wrong to use a condom, to masturbate, to have pre-marital sex, or engage in sodomy/oral sex.


Maybe if the Catholic Church or any other church stop claiming to have the moral authority on sex and marriage, they will get less criticism when they are proven to be immoral by their own standards.

Can't have it both ways.

If the church wants to criticize others for sexual immorality, they deserve just as much if not more criticism for their sexual immorality.

As mentioned in the Bible: Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I appreciate your honesty. So it has to do with philosophical and political differences with the Catholic Church, zero of any concern for child sexual abuse -- as I stated. Otherwise, I'm not sure why someone who doesn't buy off on any of it or committed antagonists of religion would put it up on a higher pedestal for ripping it down.

DUH!!!

Thank you for your contribution as always.

[subego]

Can I pull things back to my "repeated slanders"?

I think you need to pony up on this lest you be guilty of slander yourself.

[leekohler2]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate your honesty. So it has to do with philosophical and political differences with the Catholic Church, zero of any concern for child sexual abuse -- as I stated. Otherwise, I'm not sure why someone who doesn't buy off on any of it or committed antagonists of religion would put it up on a higher pedestal for ripping it down.

DUH!!!

Thank you for your contribution as always.

OK, let me ask you this- is the NEA and the Fed systemically moving child molesting teachers, once caught, around to different schools to protect them, or are the offenders being prosecuted? Also, is the NEA claiming to be a bastion of righteousness?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I appreciate your honesty. So it has to do with philosophical and political differences with the Catholic Church, zero of any concern for child sexual abuse -- as I stated. Otherwise, I'm not sure why someone who doesn't buy off on any of it or committed antagonists of religion would put it up on a higher pedestal for ripping it down.

DUH!!!

Thank you for your contribution as always.

Why must it be mutually exclusive? It can't be about both?

You can't have concern for child sexual abuse and criticize the Catholic Church at the same time?

You seem to have a twisted logic.


The reason the Catholic Church receives more criticism is because there are more reasons to criticize them. It isn't just because of "philosophical and political differences with the Catholic Church."


Here are a few reasons why the Catholic Church is receiving a lot of criticism on child sexual abuse
1. It's child sexual abuse. Violated the children.
2. The Church claim to have the moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage. Violated their moral code.
3. The Church hide its sexual abuse cases and did not report it to the authorities. Violated the law.
4. The Church rather protect themselves than the children by keeping the sexual predators in positions of authority where children are involved.

No, the reasons above are not mutually exclusive.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Why must it be mutually exclusive? It can't be about both?

You can't have concern for child sexual abuse and criticize the Catholic Church at the same time?

One certainly can, but I maintain those complaining of it in this thread are not truly concerned about child sexual abuse and you couldn't have demonstrated my argument more effectively than you had in your initial response. Now you're trying to qualify it, but really -- your initial response was all that was necessary.

You seem to have a twisted logic.

Let's take a look at this twisted logic.

The reason the Catholic Church receives more criticism is because there are more reasons to criticize them. It isn't just because of "philosophical and political differences with the Catholic Church."

Here are a few reasons why the Catholic Church is receiving a lot of criticism on child sexual abuse
1. It's child sexual abuse. Violated the children.

Yes, but knowing there are institutions among us with a far worse track-record, one has to ask why the Catholic Church should take the lion's share of responsibility for this social ill.

2. The Church claim to have the moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage. Violated their moral code.

Your logic fails here on two counts. We're talking about child sexual abuse. 1. Child sexual abuse goes against just about every tenet of every faith up to and including atheism. Atheists do not believe it is acceptable to violate children, correct? Does this make atheists a moral authority on child sexual abuse? Of course not. All are moral authorities with regard to child sexual abuse as virtually everyone is against this and would vocally oppose it. 2. The Catholic Church has authority over adherents of that faith, but with regard to child sexual abuse; virtually all are in agreement on this immoral act. There is no single, known authority on this matter -- we're all opposed. Whether or not you agree with the Church's stance on abortion or birth control is of course, entirely irrelevant here.

3. The Church hide its sexual abuse cases and did not report it to the authorities. Violated the law.

Right, just like the Department of Education, thousands of public school systems, teachers, and administrators across the country, and the NEA that protects their jobs.

4. The Church rather protect themselves than the children by keeping the sexual predators in positions of authority where children are involved.

Your logic: The school system rather protect themselves than the children by keeping sexual predators in positions of authority over children seeking their compulsory education.

No, the reasons above are not mutually exclusive.

Child sexual abuse is not exclusive to the Catholic Church and in fact, institutional child sexual abuse is far more prevalent in the public school system, but since they don't espouse unrelated philosophical or political views you happen to disagree with; they are not to be derided for any of these social ills near as liberally as the Church. Why? Because it's a Church, period.

Again, this can't be out of any real concern for child sexual abuse as there is rampant abuse right under your nose in the public school system. Let's be honest here -- It's fodder for religiophobes, nothing more.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Can I pull things back to my "repeated slanders"?

I think you need to pony up on this lest you be guilty of slander yourself.

When did I make that accusation specifically against you? It was its own, separated statement indicating that really, the reason why we don't do this to the public school system or the NEA is because it's just damned unfair. For whatever reason, it's acceptable to abandon all sense of fairness when talking about a religious institution.

In reviewing this thread from the first post, I was essentially taking issue with the very same things you picked up on early into the discussion. It wasn't until I expressed this problem that you decided to take devil's advocate with the counter-argument that the Pope speaks directly for God... when in fact you really don't buy that at all. He's only speaking directly for God to those who believe such a thing and people who believe such a thing aren't as liberal in indicting the Institution for a social ill that is no more a prevailing identity for them than it is any other institution deemed necessary for children.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

knowing there are institutions among us with a far worse track-record, one has to ask why the Catholic Church should take the lion's share of responsibility for this social ill.

Lets look at your twisted logic again. Firstly, I don't think just because the RCC is taking a lot of heat means they are taking the majority share of responsibility for all child abuse. They are taking so much heat because A: They have done a lot very, very wrong; and B: By portraying themselves as a shining example (or even source) of all morality, the levels of hypocrisy involved are at an all time high. Its the same reason a family values politician gets it in the neck from the media when he is caught sleeping around while a drug-fuelled Hollywood A-lister doing the same is nothing more than you'd expect.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your logic fails here on two counts. We're talking about child sexual abuse. 1. Child sexual abuse goes against just about every tenet of every faith up to and including atheism. Atheists do not believe it is acceptable to violate children, correct? Does this make atheists a moral authority on child sexual abuse? Of course not. All are moral authorities with regard to child sexual abuse as virtually everyone is against this and would vocally oppose it. 2. The Catholic Church has authority over adherents of that faith, but with regard to child sexual abuse; virtually all are in agreement on this immoral act. There is no single, known authority on this matter -- we're all opposed. Whether or not you agree with the Church's stance on abortion or birth control is of course, entirely irrelevant here.

This is just a horrible attempt at a smokescreen. I can't count the number of people who tell me that humans would have no morals whatsoever if it weren't for religion. I'd be surprised if that list didn't include you in one of our previous discussions though I have no intention of checking. Like it or not, the RCC (like most churches) claims total moral authority over its adherents (which includes the catholic clergy btw) and claims to be the benchmark for moral behaviour for everyone, adherent or not. You don't get to cop out when you get caught out.
Morality is one of the most important things a church has going for it. They can't stick to their own rules, given that their own convictions about going to hell should be stronger than anyone else's, and because they knew that would undermine their authority (moral and otherwise) they tried to cover it up. Which is even more immoral. Like I said, unprecedented levels of hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, just like the Department of Education, thousands of public school systems, teachers, and administrators across the country, and the NEA that protects their jobs.

Where is your evidence that the department of education et al is actively covering up abuse and protecting abusers? I suppose you think Obama is personally relocating these people?

[QUOTE=ebuddy;4219987]
Your logic: The school system rather protect themselves than the children by keeping sexual predators in positions of authority over children seeking their compulsory education. [/QUOTE[

See previous point. Where is the evidence that suggests the same levels of abuse let alone the organised cover-up sanctioned by those in charge?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Child sexual abuse is not exclusive to the Catholic Church and in fact, institutional child sexual abuse is far more prevalent in the public school system, but since they don't espouse unrelated philosophical or political views you happen to disagree with; they are not to be derided for any of these social ills near as liberally as the Church. Why? Because it's a Church, period.

I think you'll find that when someone in the public school system is found guilty of child abuse (or often only implicated) their lives are ruined, their careers are ended and they are never seen in schools again. Even if that isn't always the case, that is how its supposed to work. In the RCC, the offender is quietly whisked away to somewhere remote, and the victims are likely pressured into helping to protect the almighty church by keeping their mouths shut.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, this can't be out of any real concern for child sexual abuse as there is rampant abuse right under your nose in the public school system. Let's be honest here -- It's fodder for religiophobes, nothing more.

This is just shameful on your part. Blind faith is one thing but to accuse someone of not caring about child abuse simply because they are condemning your favourite frock-wearing nazi and his band of hypocritical child-rapists of the crimes of which we all know them to be guilty is utterly despicable.

Also, since when is "we're innocent because they're worse than us" any kind of defence for anything?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When did I make that accusation specifically against you?

When you quote me in the post which contains the statement, I'm gonna assume it's directed at me unless you do one of those "not directed at you" sorta things.

That's fair, right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

In reviewing this thread from the first post, I was essentially taking issue with the very same things you picked up on early into the discussion. It wasn't until I expressed this problem that you decided to take devil's advocate with the counter-argument that the Pope speaks directly for God... when in fact you really don't buy that at all. He's only speaking directly for God to those who believe such a thing and people who believe such a thing aren't as liberal in indicting the Institution for a social ill that is no more a prevailing identity for them than it is any other institution deemed necessary for children.

Allow me to restate my point. The Pope's holy standing gives him power over the organization undreamed of in secular institutions. He's the ultimate unitary executive, and his government has only one branch.

Liberalism or conservatism doesn't enter into it, the question is whether he has the authority.

The answer is a most emphatic yes. He has been given the authority by his constituents to speak for God. Yes, I hold a single individual with this level of authority to a higher standard than I do a secular institution. How can you even directly compare the two? Who's the Pope of our education system?

Now, the point you brought up is, at the moment, a media problem. No one reports on abuse in schools (unless it's bullying by other kids). However I'll note that were the media to fix its act overnight, the solution wouldn't be to bang on the RCC less, it would be to bang on the education system more.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Allow me to restate my point. The Pope's holy standing gives him power over the organization undreamed of in secular institutions. He's the ultimate unitary executive, and his government has only one branch.

Two, actually, he doesn't get very far without the support of the council of Cardinals. Yes, he can, and sometimes does, go over their heads, but they have been known to drag their feet in response to his requests, and can even step down in protest, causing a vacuum in authority that weakens the Pope's positions. Essentially, he's a monarch with hundreds of "nobles" who do not always agree with his wishes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Lets look at your twisted logic again. Firstly, I don't think just because the RCC is taking a lot of heat means they are taking the majority share of responsibility for all child abuse.

I disagree. It is irresistible for religiophobes to bring up a connection between Catholicism and child sexual abuse in any discussion on a host of topics including the Catholic Church, children, priests, or sexual abuse. You can set a watch by it.

They are taking so much heat because A: They have done a lot very, very wrong;

Short list of institutions that have not, please. If the "a lot wrong" has nothing to do with child sexual abuse, well then we're talking about child sexual abuse in a thread on the pope's resignation because of religiophobia and/or philosophical or political differences, not out of any concern for child sexual abuse.

B: By portraying themselves as a shining example (or even source) of all morality, the levels of hypocrisy involved are at an all time high. Its the same reason a family values politician gets it in the neck from the media when he is caught sleeping around while a drug-fuelled Hollywood A-lister doing the same is nothing more than you'd expect.

So... you disagree with them philosophically and politically. Twisted logic. A. a male politician regularly opposed to gay rights who happens to get caught sleeping with a male will get lambasted, but this is not because the people lambasting him are opposed to gay sex. You think this is hypocrisy of course and I get that, but then -- that's my complaint with people who bring this up whenever possible. B. the Catholic Church is only a moral authority to Catholics and they are no more a moral authority on child sexual abuse than the overwhelming majority of society serving in any official capacity, also opposed to the act. The accusation is merely fodder for ideological opponents, not unlike the indictments against politicians.

This is just a horrible attempt at a smokescreen. I can't count the number of people who tell me that humans would have no morals whatsoever if it weren't for religion. I'd be surprised if that list didn't include you in one of our previous discussions though I have no intention of checking.

You're much better at demonstrating smokescreens than you are at identifying them. Of course I've said no such thing. Religion is a human construct, subject to all the ills of mankind. These ills are being exploited as fodder for ideological opposition having zero to do with child sexual abuse to scare people away from the philosophy or to sheeple into despair over it. It's just like an atheist to elevate Christian figures above their own secular authorities.

Like it or not, the RCC (like most churches) claims total moral authority over its adherents (which includes the catholic clergy btw) and claims to be the benchmark for moral behaviour for everyone, adherent or not. You don't get to cop out when you get caught out.

Their views on gay rights, abortion, and birth control have nothing to do with an immorality that transcends culture and religion. Unfortunately, this doesn't stop it from existing. The Catholic Church is no more a moral authority on child sexual abuse than the school principle, also vocally opposed to child sexual abuse.

Morality is one of the most important things a church has going for it. They can't stick to their own rules, given that their own convictions about going to hell should be stronger than anyone else's, and because they knew that would undermine their authority (moral and otherwise) they tried to cover it up. Which is even more immoral. Like I said, unprecedented levels of hypocrisy.

How is this more egregious than utilizing the collective resources of the country to stand up an institution deemed compulsory for children with access to many more children and a 10% child sexual abuse rate?

Where is your evidence that the department of education et al is actively covering up abuse and protecting abusers? I suppose you think Obama is personally relocating these people?

How do you know they're covering it up and protecting abusers? I'm not going to pretend to know which offensive people have been relocated by the President or for what sexual reasons, are you? Or any other formalized institution for that matter. The difference here is that I don't think it should be such an integral part of Obama's identity that sexual misconduct in the military for example, should be brought up in any discussion of the man.

See previous point. Where is the evidence that suggests the same levels of abuse let alone the organised cover-up sanctioned by those in charge?

Suggesting the same levels? They're not even close.

Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
Essentially all estimates I've seen around the public school system show a rate of abuse somewhere between 6 - 10% which in sheer numbers should bring shock to anyone this sensitive to child sexual abuse. But again to be clear, I do not think this should be such an integral part of their identity that it should be brought up in any discussion on public education. I'm using the example to demonstrate my complaint.

I think you'll find that when someone in the public school system is found guilty of child abuse (or often only implicated) their lives are ruined, their careers are ended and they are never seen in schools again. Even if that isn't always the case, that is how its supposed to work. In the RCC, the offender is quietly whisked away to somewhere remote, and the victims are likely pressured into helping to protect the almighty church by keeping their mouths shut.

For just the reasons you cite and the atrocious nature of the act itself, child sexual abuse is extremely destructive to the faith and it behooves them to address the problem. For one thing, 30 year old scandals in a church seem to outlive even the most current of blatant offenses making the news today including the hot teacher and the pleasantly-surprised male student. Five Catholic prelates resigned in the US and a bunch of bishops and clergy from across the globe were forced out of the Catholic Church for similar circumstances. They've displayed as much if not more willingness to face this problem as any other organization. It's noteworthy to you because of your philosophical and political differences with the Catholic church. In reality, child sexual abuse is no more an integral part of their identity than child sexual abuse is the identity of the public school system or any administrator seeking to cover it up to protect the integrity of the school. Yet, we can talk about schools and the education system all day long without this coming up. The pope resigns, child sexual abuse makes page one. The nazi thing is new and you're an even better atheist for bringing that into the discussion.

This is just shameful on your part. Blind faith is one thing but to accuse someone of not caring about child abuse simply because they are condemning your favourite frock-wearing nazi and his band of hypocritical child-rapists of the crimes of which we all know them to be guilty is utterly despicable.

It's not who you're indicting, it's who you're not indicting. I don't follow the Catholic faith or revere the words of the Pope. I don't hold the Catholic church as a moral authority and neither do you, particularly on matters that transcend religion and cultures such as child sexual abuse. I'm not compelled to make this connection to the Catholic faith whenever possible, but then I'm also not usually inclined to make this connection to the public school system. There's no reason to do so other than overt hostility toward an Institution for reasons having nothing to do with child sexual abuse. Given the supposed level of concern for child sexual abuse, I thought the forum could use some perspective.

Also, since when is "we're innocent because they're worse than us" any kind of defence for anything?

I'm not defending anything, I'm complaining about the hypocrisy of feigned outrage for political/philosophical differences having nothing to do with any real concern for child sexual abuse.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

One certainly can, but I maintain those complaining of it in this thread are not truly concerned about child sexual abuse and you couldn't have demonstrated my argument more effectively than you had in your initial response. Now you're trying to qualify it, but really -- your initial response was all that was necessary.

Again, this can't be out of any real concern for child sexual abuse as there is rampant abuse right under your nose in the public school system. Let's be honest here -- It's fodder for religiophobes, nothing more.

So using your twisted logic, the public criticism and outrate towards Sandusky and Penn state has nothing to do with child sexual abuse, but it's all fodder for football haters, Penn State haters, and sportsphobes.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So using your twisted logic, the public criticism and outrate towards Sandusky and Penn state has nothing to do with child sexual abuse, but it's all fodder for football haters, Penn State haters, and sportsphobes.

You're still not getting it. No one is using Penn State as an indictment against the whole of the US Dept of Education. Yes, the outrage over Penn State was primarily one of concern for exploited children and sexual abuse. However, those who would use this instance as an indictment against the whole of the US Dept of Education would not be doing so out of concern for children, but opposition to any host of other unrelated matters. I use this merely as an exhibit of the blatant hypocrisy and lacking reason of antagonistic religiophobes.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I disagree. It is irresistible for religiophobes to bring up a connection between Catholicism and child sexual abuse in any discussion on a host of topics including the Catholic Church, children, priests, or sexual abuse. You can set a watch by it.

Because the Catholic Church has over 1 billion followers and claim moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage. They have influence over 1 billion followers spanning across 7 continents.

The Catholic Church is held to higher standards because of influence and their claim to be the moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage.

Of course the Catholic Church is going to receive more criticism than other organizations when it comes child sexual abuse.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're still not getting it. No one is using Penn State as an indictment against the whole of the US Dept of Education. Yes, the outrage over Penn State was primarily one of concern for exploited children and sexual abuse. However, those who would use this instance as an indictment against the whole of the US Dept of Education would not be doing so out of concern for children, but opposition to any host of other unrelated matters. I use this merely as an exhibit of the blatant hypocrisy and lacking reason of antagonistic religiophobes.

More twisted logic.

The Pope, the Church, the Catholic organization/churches, and the priests on many levels of the organization were trying to hide the child sexual abuse cases from the public and the local authorities.

The US Dept of Education isn't actively involve with Penn State and trying to actively hide the child sexual abuses case from the public and local authorities.

You think US Dept of Education actively told officials at Penn State to keep the child sexual abuse cases a secret in order to protect Sandusky and its football program?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Because the Catholic Church has over 1 billion followers and claim moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage. They have influence over 1 billion followers spanning across 7 continents.

How many children seek their compulsory education in a public school system globally? They're all vocally opposed to child sexual abuse as well right? You're arguing numbers when anyone with so much as an abacus at their disposal would know this argument is nonsense on its face.

The Catholic Church is held to higher standards because of influence and their claim to be the moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage.

We're not talking about the Churches' stance on gay marriage, abortion, or birth control. You're just making my argument for me. We're talking about child sexual abuse. Why would the Catholic Church have any more powerful an influence on the maltreatment of children than an Institution stood up through the public trust; tasked specifically with the compulsory education of all its children?

Of course the Catholic Church is going to receive more criticism than other organizations when it comes child sexual abuse.

Only by sensationalist, religiophobic sheeple and those overtly hostile to the Catholic Church, not out of any genuine concern for children.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How many children seek their compulsory education in a public school system globally? They're all vocally opposed to child sexual abuse as well right? You're arguing numbers when anyone with so much as an abacus at their disposal would know this argument is nonsense on its face.

I didn't realize the US Dept of Education has influence over education in a public school system globally.
I didn't realize the US Dept of Education claim moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage.
I didn't realize the US Dept of Education was actively involve in trying to hide child sexual abuse cases from the public and local authorities.

But I guess in your twisted mind, they do.
The only nonesense is coming from you.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

We're not talking about the Churches' stance on gay marriage, abortion, or birth control. You're just making my argument for me. We're talking about child sexual abuse.

Gay marriage? I wasn't talking about gay marriages. Maybe you are projecting. I guess homophobes will automatically think I was talking about gay marriages.

I'll educate you for a second.

Under the Catholic religion:
1. Priests are not allowed to be married.
2. sex isn't permitted outside of marriage

If you still don't understand the relationship bewteen sex and marriage when discussing the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion, may God help you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Two, actually, he doesn't get very far without the support of the council of Cardinals. Yes, he can, and sometimes does, go over their heads, but they have been known to drag their feet in response to his requests, and can even step down in protest, causing a vacuum in authority that weakens the Pope's positions. Essentially, he's a monarch with hundreds of "nobles" who do not always agree with his wishes.

Carrying out that analogy, depending up in what exactly the Pope did, the nobles who protest would have a peasant rebellion on their hands.

It seems to me he had the leeway to do a fair amount more than what he did, and as such, deserves a certain amount of harsh judgment.


@ebuddy,

I also want to throw out there Ratzinger having done more would have been good for the RCC. Both in terms of perception and reality. The way things are going there's going to be a schism. Catholics are (rightly) way tired of this shit.

I'm not going to accept me haranguing the RCC on this is some sort of "Catholic hating". The church has some positions I find pretty loathsome. Have I brought those up? No. Because they're not relevant to a thread about the Pope retiring. I likewise understand those positions considering the scripture upon which the church is built.

There is no scriptural defense for how the RCC and the Ratzinger have dealt with this.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Or maybe it's just damned impolite to repeatedly slander people or Institutions that otherwise do a great deal of good for nothing more than philosophical reasons.

Oh Jesus. Someone can be a great person and a terrible father. Doesn't make it impolite to point it out. If you wanna go down this route, you'd have to some how quantify children being molested and people being helped and somehow demonstrate the latter part of the equation is heavier. And I still don't think that'd justify keeping mum on the subject.

BTW, it's only slander if its untrue. You really think Ratzinger was in the dark about what was happening in the church, at either a local or global level?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Gay marriage? I wasn't talking about gay marriages. Maybe you are projecting. I guess homophobes will automatically think I was talking about gay marriages.

I'll educate you for a second.

Under the Catholic religion:
1. Priests are not allowed to be married.
2. sex isn't permitted outside of marriage

If you still don't understand the relationship bewteen sex and marriage when discussing the Catholic Church and the Catholic religion, may God help you.

The Latin Rite does not allow married men to be ordained. Eastern rites Catholics allow married men to be ordained. If I wanted to change canonical status to Byzantine and be ordained I could. The Latin rite church does allow some select married Anglican Priests who have converted to be ordained in the Latin rite. Single men in any Catholic rite who are ordained take a vow of celibacy. Married men men who are ordained and their wives die are not allowed to remarry. The Latin rite has permanent deacons. They are allowed to be married men.

The vast majority of the abuse cases are decades old. The abuse by teachers/coaches is on going and are more and more the perps are married women. All one has to to is turn on the local news and see another teacher arrested for having sex with her students.

This website was updated daily until Google decided it did not like what they saw and cut off the meager Adsense funding.

Teacher student sex scandals. Updated Daily

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

All one has to to is turn on the local news and see another teacher arrested for having sex with her students.

In fact, most abuse cases happen within one's own family. But you're missing the point: The outrage over the abuse cases is not their existence, but primarily how the institution Catholic church has consistently protected the perpetrators and attempted to silence the victims. Even worse, many pedophile priests were moved to positions where they again had contact to more children. It's not isolated incidents specific to a country or a person (say, an archbishop). That's the difference between the cases at certain schools where specific person(s) are to blame (the pedophile and perhaps those who helped cover up the abuse) and here, where a whole institution operating world-wide is to blame.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I didn't realize the US Dept of Education has influence over education in a public school system globally.

No, the US Department of Education is the purveyor of a system that rolls through approximately 50 million children a year. An ongoing 6-10% rate of child sexual abuse in the public school system means the number of children abused under this system is an order of magnitude greater than the number of children accessible to a Priest for molestation or the 3,000 + cases brought against the US Dioceses from the 1950's. Otherwise, you're still not getting it, (Enter school system / country here), it doesn't matter. There is a far greater potential for abuse within the confines of the public school system, far greater number of cases brought against it, same Institutional cover-ups, people getting shifted around, etc... the exact same problems exist throughout both systems; one with far greater access to children under the guise of a compulsory education. The problems you have with the Catholic Church are philosophical and political, period.

I didn't realize the US Dept of Education claim moral authority on things relating to sex and marriage.

Everyone is a moral authority on child sexual abuse and there isn't a school administrator or official who wouldn't passionately and publicly decry this act. If there is even a modicum of sex-education in the school system, your argument breaks down entirely. (even while wholly irrelevant of course) The Church's stance on gay marriage, birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, or whether or not priests can get married is entirely irrelevant to the conversation unless you're saying that the Catholic Church should be held to a much higher standard for holding views hyteckit disagrees with.

I didn't realize the US Dept of Education was actively involve in trying to hide child sexual abuse cases from the public and local authorities.

Umm... Penn State anyone?

• NPR: The U.S. Department of Education has failed to aggressively monitor and regulate campus response to sexual assault. The department has the authority to fine schools that fail to report crime on campus. In 20 years, the department has used that power just six times. And the department can also find that a school has violated a law that prevents discrimination against women. But between 1998 and 2008, the department ruled against just five universities out of 24 resolved complaints.That's according to records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Center for Public Integrity. No punishment was given in those cases — simply guidance on how to improve campus procedures.
• When the Seattle Times asked the Bellevue School District for information about teachers and coaches accused of sexual misconduct, school officials and the state’s most powerful union teamed up behind the scenes to try to hide the files. Bellevue school officials even let teachers purge their own records at union-organized “file parties” to prevent disclosure
• The federal Department of Education regulates schools under the Clery Act. But it has fined offending schools just six times. Most fines have been small. The biggest — for $350,000 — came against Eastern Michigan University. Administrators there covered up the 2006 rape and murder of a student, 22-year-old Laura Dickinson, letting her parents think she'd died suddenly of natural causes..
• Arne Duncan is head of the US Department of Education; under his watch while CEO of Chicago Public Schools from 2001 to 2009, An exclusive CBS 2 Chicago investigation identified an abuse case as being just one of 818 Chicago Public School students since 2003, to be battered by an educator and/or administrator. As of February of 2009, 568 out of 818 cases filed have been verified. These abuse cases first emerged around 2003 out of the 568 verified cases, only 24 led to termination. Records even indicate how one teacher, identified as one who “battered students for several years,” was only given a “warning” by the Board of Education. Another student who had endured abuse in the form of “100 licks with a belt” received no justice, as his teacher was not terminated, even though the abuse was substantiated. This all sounds very familiar to me.

But I guess in your twisted mind, they do.

Your ignorance is astounding.

The only nonesense is coming from you.

And... as always, thank you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh Jesus. Someone can be a great person and a terrible father. Doesn't make it impolite to point it out. If you wanna go down this route, you'd have to some how quantify children being molested and people being helped and somehow demonstrate the latter part of the equation is heavier. And I still don't think that'd justify keeping mum on the subject.

BTW, it's only slander if its untrue. You really think Ratzinger was in the dark about what was happening in the church, at either a local or global level?

You're missing the point as I'm sure Arne Duncan as head of the US Dept of Education is also aware of the 6-10% child sexual abuse rate. This doesn't mean that any discussion of Arne Duncan and the US Dept of Education should include commentary on child sexual abuse. I think one should be able to talk about the Catholic Church or the Pope as they would the public school system or its heads; without immediate reference to child sexual abuse. That's all. The reason this comes up is political and philosophical differences with the Catholic Church, absolutely zero to do with the thousands of children abused each day in the confines of a public Institution for which zealots don't have immediate philosophical or political differences.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're missing the point as I'm sure Arne Duncan as head of the US Dept of Education is also aware of the 6-10% child sexual abuse rate. This doesn't mean that any discussion of Arne Duncan and the US Dept of Education should include commentary on child sexual abuse. I think one should be able to talk about the Catholic Church or the Pope as they would the public school system or its heads; without immediate reference to child sexual abuse. That's all. The reason this comes up is political and philosophical differences with the Catholic Church, absolutely zero to do with the thousands of children abused each day in the confines of a public Institution for which zealots don't have immediate philosophical or political differences.

The difference being that as far as we know, Arne Duncan didn't have direct knowledge of child sexual abuse.

BTW, we aren't just mentioning Ratzinger in passing here. He's retiring which makes his history and legacy fair game.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

TAll one has to to is turn on the local news and see another teacher arrested for having sex with her students.

Be it hypocrisy, societal differences, etc., I don't equate this one-to-one with priests messing with young kids.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Latin Rite does not allow married men to be ordained.

Is it okay if your wife dies, or is it once married, never a priest?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is it okay if your wife dies, or is it once married, never a priest?

I always wondered about this.