NINE YEAR THREAD BUMP: Catholic church and child abuse

[Naffa]

People like being told what to do, its just natural behaviour. It's really no different to people buying tabloid newspapers and spouting the headlines as if they were their own opinions.

Even Atheists in America seem to have a new found enthusiasm for leadership and organised movements in the form of people like Richard Dawkins telling them or the supposed unconverted what to do or how to think.

What? When has Richard Dawkins ever told people what to do, or how to think? That would be the greatest hypocrisy if he started issuing commandments on how one is to lead one's life.

Also, I could note a few substantial differences between taking a journalists view as your own, and being commanded to behave and live in a certain way.

 

[kylew]

People like being told what to do, its just natural behaviour. It's really no different to people buying tabloid newspapers and spouting the headlines as if they were their own opinions.

Even Atheists in America seem to have a new found enthusiasm for leadership and organised movements in the form of people like Richard Dawkins telling them or the supposed unconverted what to do or how to think.

Is exactly what I meant by

People like you are just as bad as the religious nuts you go on about, but claim everyone who is religious is a religious nut.

 

[Naffa]

The fist link is probably the most telling due to it also suggesting a cover up.

Anglicans (who can marry and have kids):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566826/C-of-E-child-abuse-was-ignored-for-decades.html

Islam (Imams can marrry and have kids):
http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.u...-offences/article-1819964-detail/article.html

Hare Krishna are at it too (excuse the wiki link the abuse was from pre-internet times)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nsciousness#Internal_problems_and_controversy

Plenty more examples too. As well as plenty of examples of non-religious organisations where abuse is prevelant. The common factor seems to be "access to children". Go figure.

Wow, fair enough. It seems the problem is far more reaching.

What's that even supposed to mean?

"Atheists can do just as much good as religious people but Atheists can't perform the atrocities carried out by the religious"

If that's what it's supposed to mean, then what utter and absolute nonsense.

I really don't have energy to prolong this... I've made my case over and over and over and over. If you can't understand my viewpoint then I've no real desire to try and make you. You may believe whatever you wish (one of the virtues of not being religious!), and think of me whatever you want. I've ceased to mind.

 

[Chimerical]

What? When has Richard Dawkins ever told people what to do, or how to think? That would be the greatest hypocrisy if he started issuing commandments on how one is to lead one's life.

Bus signs perhaps? Charities for non-believers to donate to? His book subtly entitled "The God Delusion", his desire to see an atheist political movement?

There's plenty of examples.

 

[kylew]

I really don't have energy to prolong this... I've made my case over and over and over and over. If you can't understand my viewpoint then I've no real desire to try and make you. You may believe whatever you wish (one of the virtues of not being religious!), and think of me whatever you want. I've ceased to mind.

Cop out to be honest.

 

[Naffa]

Bus signs perhaps? Charities for non-believers to donate to? His book subtly entitled "The God Delusion", his desire to see an atheist political movement?

There's plenty of examples.

Umm.. I don't agree with your assumption. The title of his book, 'The God Delusion' is obviously intended to be provocative, but that's about as far as I would go.

The bus sign read: "There's probably no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I fail to see anything sinister or any desire for a specific political movement. Obviously Dawkins has very strong views regarding atheism, as do many other people, but to equate his writings and such to that of the religious is a tad ridiculous.

Cop out to be honest.

Of course it's a cop out. I obviously don't have the ability with the English language to make you see my point, so I've no choice but to cop out.

 

[RDM]

Wow, fair enough. It seems the problem is far more reaching.

The common denominator tends to be "access to children". Rather then "believes in a sky fairy and isn't allowed to have sex". I am guessing it wouldn't take too long to find numerous examples of secular or non-religious organisations being involved in sexual abuse.

 

[Naffa]

The common denominator tends to be "access to children". Rather then "believes in a sky fairy and isn't allowed to have sex". I am guessing it wouldn't take too long to find numerous examples of secular or non-religious organisations being involved in sexual abuse.

Yes, I'm sure. However, I'd be inclined to think there is another factor in there, because surely having access to children wouldn't be enough to make someone become paedophile?

 

[kylew]

Of course it's a cop out. I obviously don't have the ability with the English language to make you see my point, so I've no choice but to cop out.

I meant a "I Can't really answer that, so I'll pretend I'm done instead".

 

[Naffa]

I meant a "I Can't really answer that, so I'll pretend I'm done instead".

Well, I suppose that's correct then, because I obviously can't answer the 'questions' you're posing with an answer that's comprehensible to yourself.

 

[RDM]

Yes, I'm sure. However, I'd be inclined to think there is another factor in there, because surely having access to children wouldn't be enough to make someone become paedophile?

Do you become a paedophile? Can you personally think of any set of circumstances that would make you want to have sex with children? Are you honestly suggesting that prior to entering the church these people did not have such urges and that something within the chruch turned them in to paedophiles? If so, what do you suggest made them into paedophiles? If it was sexual abstinance then why is it also prevelant in organisations where sexual abstinance is not required?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_child_abuse_scandal

Is it not possible that someone who has such tendancies will gravitate towards "careers" that allow access to children?

 

[kylew]

Yes, I'm sure. However, I'd be inclined to think there is another factor in there, because surely having access to children wouldn't be enough to make someone become paedophile?

It's been pointed out to you a few times now, no one is saying they become pedophiles BECAUSE they have access to children, but rather people who have that desire will seek out a position where they have access to children.

Otherwise, what do you believe makes people have such desires?

 

[semi-pro waster]

Yes, I'm sure. However, I'd be inclined to think there is another factor in there, because surely having access to children wouldn't be enough to make someone become paedophile?

That's not really where RDM is leading I'd imagine, the point being that people who have a tendency towards paedophilia will choose occupations where they have easier access to children. Not that those occupations will make them become paedophiles and not that religion will encourage them to become paedophiles either.

//edit rather too slow on the reply here.

 

[Naffa]

Do you become a paedophile? Can you personally think of any set of circumstances that would make you want to have sex with children? Are you honestly suggesting that prior to entering the church these people did not have such urges and that something within the chruch turned them in to paedophiles? If so, what do you suggest made them into paedophiles? If it was sexual abstinance then why is it also prevelant in organisations where sexual abstinance is not required?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_child_abuse_scandal

Is it not possible that someone who has such tendancies will gravitate towards "careers" that allow access to children?

I'm sorry, my previous post wasn't (believe it or not ) insinuating a link with religion. I honestly don't know whether the people that carried out these horrendous acts were such inclined, before entering the church. But I'd be fairly certain that the abstinence and such would have acted of a catalyst. As for the non-religious organisations, again, it's the same question you posed before (obviously with the religion part removed).

I suppose it could well be yes, that people to gravitate towards such careers, but I would be utterly shocked and even more disgusted if a scandal is uncovered that's as gross and far reaching as the one plaguing the Catholic church.

Otherwise, what do you believe makes people have such desires?

Good point, I'd misunderstood what RDM was implying when he made the post.

That's not really where RDM is leading I'd imagine, the point being that people who have a tendency towards paedophilia will choose occupations where they have easier access to children. Not that those occupations will make them become paedophiles and not that religion will encourage them to become paedophiles either.

Yes, I'd agree. I misunderstood where he was leading, as clarified in his last post.

 

[kylew]

That's not really where RDM is leading I'd imagine, the point being that people who have a tendency towards paedophilia will choose occupations where they have easier access to children. Not that those occupations will make them become paedophiles and not that religion will encourage them to become paedophiles either.

Which is entirely true, I have experience of it my self, my mum worked at place where there were a lot of children, a type of after school thing.

Some guy came in off the street one day wanting to do volunteer work, the "boss" accepted him, he was there for a few weeks and then ended up on the payroll.

The guy was acting odd around kids, being way too keen to spend time with them and was exhibiting signs that he was trying to "groom" them.

So a CRB check is done, CRB form comes in, the man's got a sexual offence against a 10 year old girl on his record.

The "Boss" refuses to get rid of him, the "boss" also turns out to have such tendencies too, he actually wanted the random guy around the children and refused to get rid of him.

Anyway, the guy flees because the local people find out, and my mum has spoken to the guy's parole officers and they told her that he moulds him self to different characters and has been a member of all sorts of religions just to get himself in to organisations where he would have access to kids.

 

[Dolph]

I'm sorry, my previous post wasn't (believe it or not ) insinuating a link with religion. I honestly don't know whether the people that carried out these horrendous acts were such inclined, before entering the church. But I'd be fairly certain that the abstinence and such would have acted of a catalyst. As for the non-religious organisations, again, it's the same question you posed before (obviously with the religion part removed).

I suppose it could well be yes, that people to gravitate towards such careers, but I would be utterly shocked and even more disgusted if a scandal is uncovered that's as gross and far reaching as the one plaguing the Catholic church.

Good point, I'd misunderstood what RDM was implying when he made the post.

Yes, I'd agree. I misunderstood where he was leading, as clarified in his last post.

If you're a paedophile, you're celibate for your attraction no matter what job role you're in...

With regards to similar scandal levels, a look at the history of sexual abuse in local authority care might well scare the hell out of you...

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/briefings/abuseofchildreninresidentialcare_wda48221.html

 

[RDM]

I honestly don't know whether the people that carried out these horrendous acts were such inclined, before entering the church. But I'd be fairly certain that the abstinence and such would have acted of a catalyst.

But the point is that sexual abuse occurs on a fairly regular basis without the abstinence and also doesn't occur on a much more regular basis with the abstinence so why do you think abstinence is a catalyst?

I could be wrong, but it seems that you are trying to afix blame for the sexual abuse on an aspect of church teaching because it is an aspect of church teaching rather than it actually being a cause. There just doesn't seem to be any evidence that abstinence has anything to do with it and plenty of evidence to suggest it is unrelated.

Regardless, none of my argument in any way absolves the church of any guilt for the horrendous way it has handled the child abuse scandal which is wrong across the board. But that is more an organisation trying to avoid scandal than again anything to do with religion.

 

[Briton]

I think the abstinence thing can help with covering up your inclinations in some small way but can't imagine how it would lead to pedophilia.

 

[Dolph]

But the point is that sexual abuse occurs on a fairly regular basis without the abstinence and also doesn't occur on a much more regular basis with the abstinence so why do you think abstinence is a catalyst?

I could be wrong, but it seems that you are trying to afix blame for the sexual abuse on an aspect of church teaching because it is an aspect of church teaching rather than it actually being a cause. There just doesn't seem to be any evidence that abstinence has anything to do with it and plenty of evidence to suggest it is unrelated.

Regardless, none of my argument in any way absolves the church of any guilt for the horrendous way it has handled the child abuse scandal which is wrong across the board. But that is more an organisation trying to avoid scandal than again anything to do with religion.

This makes interesting reading.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm

Especially the comparative data breakdown with references.

 

[kitfit1]

I'm sorry, my previous post wasn't (believe it or not ) insinuating a link with religion. I honestly don't know whether the people that carried out these horrendous acts were such inclined, before entering the church. But I'd be fairly certain that the abstinence and such would have acted of a catalyst.

The whole reason that this is in the news again, is because child abuse was endemic within the Catholic church. Because it was, it became a prime recruting ground for those abusers. Abusers by thier nature, know other abusers, they cover for each other (they do now and they always have done).
Within the Catholic church over many many years (50+), those abusers had climed up through the ranks, which gave them the ability to cover for even more abusers. For those that are interested, this did not just apply to Priests, but also applied to Nuns as well.

So, yes they were paedophiles before becoming Priests or Nuns.
It's that the Catholic gave them perfect cover to carry on with these activities, that has provoked the current uproar.