The scale of child abuse by priests remained hidden in the United States for years until the Archbishop of Boston confessed in 2002 to protecting a priest he knew had sexually abused young members of his church.
According to the group "Bishop Accountability," some 3000 priests out of the 42,000 across the country have since been denounced after abusing children, some of whom have been investigated and convicted.
US Catholic authorities have paid out close to 3.2 billion dollars in damages, forcing many dioceses to sell off their assets.
There must be a reason why priests are so more likely to be paedophiles than the general public. It used to be the assumption that there were no more paedophiles in the church than anywhere else and that it only got reported more, But if the numbers from "bishop accountability" are anything to go by being a paedophile is almost a requirement.
hardly the behaviour you would expect from people who really believed in god.
So 7% makes it "almost a requirement" Even though 93% don't. If anything not doing it is "practically a requirement" Also, the numbers you gave are skewed a little. The 3000 is actually 4,000 and it was from 1950-present day. The number of priests, 109,000. That makes it more around 4%. So 96% didn't. Is that still "almost a requirement?"
ReplyDeleteAnd lets put a little spin on this. US scientists and religion. About 40% of scientists have a belief in god or a god. If 7% is "almost a requirement," What is 40%? Actually a requirement?
Now, what they did was terrible and they should serve time for a long long long time. And yes that isn't behavior for someone who believes in god.
Sources:
Scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Relationship_between_religion
_and_science
Priests: http://www.priestsofdarkness.com
/stats.html
No, let's not put "a little spin on it". For a change, Let's try to stay on topic and not reduce everything to something you personally feel equipped to counter.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think having a position in a church makes someone far more likely to be a filthy paedophile? what is the link between religion and the need to abuse and rape children?
Why do you think having a position in a church makes someone far more likely to be a filthy paedophile?
ReplyDeleteWell, it could be many things. One may be the lack of ability to have sex so they go after easy targets. I have no clue, honestly, since I am not a pedophile.
But 4% isn't that much, you make it sound like it is 87%. I know, there should be none. It angers me as well. I am not defending the pedophiles, I am arguing that you make it out to be much greater than it actually is. What about the 15% of students who will be abused during their school career? Why don't you report on that? If anything, that is more breaking news! There were also about 10,000 who reported being abused. Let's say, for the sake of argument, That only 1 in 5 reported abuse. So that's 50,000. A large number. Let's look at the number of Catholics in the top 10 states of Catholic Population. They have about 45,000,000 Catholics. That's .111% A very small number. Now the fact that they were abused was terrible. But the number abused is very small. I think we should be focusing on children being abused in school, which is 15% over 100x greater.
What is the link between teaching and pedophilia?
GodisforSuckers has a post under the thread title WorldNutDaily on Dec 5 which includes this:
ReplyDelete“New York’s Roman Catholic Church is trying a novel approach to alert children to the danger of being sexually assaulted by a priest, with an abuse-themed coloring book, officials said Tuesday.”
They've included a copy of one of the books pages.
D
The main difference between the abuse by priests and the abuse by teachers in the public schools, is that the priests' behavior is covered up and further abetted by simply moving them to another parish where they can begin again.
In the school system, if a child speaks out, charges are usually brought, and the teacher has to face the justice system.
I would wager the link between teaching and pedophilia and preaching and pedophilia are the same: Jobs with easy access to children. With preaching, there is more opportunity to be left alone with a child, however. The numbers are greater relative to teachers because there are that many more teachers than priests.
What percentage of priests would have to be sexually abusing children for you to consider it worthy of comment?
ReplyDeleteWhat percentage of priests would have to be sexually abusing children for you to consider it worthy of comment?
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it isn't worthy of comments. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying you are focusing on the Church but not focusing on children in schools or even in their own home.
To karen,
I heard about that actually. It is a good idea, it should be used in more than just those situations.
Also, about the teachers:
• 38.7% of the teachers resigned, left the district, or retired
• 17.5% were spoken to informally
• 15% were terminated or not re-hired
• 11.3% received a formal verbal or written reprimand
• 8.1% were suspended and then resumed teaching
• 7.5% were cases where the superintendent determined that the teacher hadn’t meant to sexually abuse
• Of the nearly 54% of abusers who resigned, weren’t rehired, retired, or were terminated, superintendents reported that 16% were teaching in other schools and that they didn’t know what had happened to the other 84%. All but 1% of these teachers retained their teaching license.
Those statistics are still very shocking. About 42% may still be "at large"
I would wager the link between teaching and pedophilia and preaching and pedophilia are the same
That was more of a joke than anything else.
Still defending paedophiles by subverting attention away from them? get on topic.
ReplyDelete"I'm not saying it isn't worthy of comments. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying you are focusing on the Church but not focusing on children in schools or even in their own home."
it's a blog about religion moron.
Still defending pedophiles by subverting attention away from them? get on topic.
ReplyDeleteSame to you. In fact, I am not defending pedophiles. I am not "subverting attention away from them" I am showing that there is a greater "pedophilia infestation" than in just priests. I am not defending them, in fact every single one of my posts has said that what I think they did was terrible and they should be put away. How is that defending?
It's a blog about religion moron.
First off, I am not a moron. Secondly, this is not a blog "about religion" it is a blog attacking religion. There is a big difference.
Thirdly, let's look at the big picture. Sure, there were some priests that were pedophiles, but you shouldn't be all up in arms about only that, there are other things.
Fourthly, I am just proving a point. It isn't only priests, it isn't "almost a requirement" for priests (what type of moron says that when there is only 7%), and there are bigger problems out there than religion.
Lastly, I am on topic. Very on topic, in fact. This post is about pedophilia. Also, whats wrong with something going off topic if a) it helps to stimulate debate or b) nobody minds. It helps to stimulate debate, something you "obviously superior atheists" would be able to crush us "pathetic religious." Which begs the question, if atheists are so superior, why must they resort to insults... Oh well, I digress.
the post isn't about paedophilia, it's about priests who are paedophiles. it's about the hypocrisy of claiming to be morally superior and a believer in hell while at the same time raping children. it's about the enormous apparent link between being a priest and being a rapist of children.
ReplyDeletebut i guess you don't like talking about that, Cuts a little too close to home, Doesn't it. You would rather divert attention away from priests and on to paedophiles you feel a bit more comfortable condemning. How very fucking "christian".
What we haven't touched on is Matt's closing remark of "hardly the behaviour you would expect from people who really believed in god."
ReplyDeletewhich I think deserves some attention.
Believers are always claiming the high moral ground, citing God as their moral compass, and chastising non-believers as not having any.
Here we have the very people one would expect to have the clearest standards of morality; men who are entrusted to guide and counsel. Men who suppposedly have a higher understanding of the tenets of their faith through their years of dedicated study. Men who make vows to serve their god and his people.
Surely these men know the laws of god and the church. Yet they freely and repeatedly break them by preying on innocents, while their superiors tidy up the mess by hushing up the complainants and sending the Padre to the next town.
I join Matt in questioning if these men really believe in god. Do they fear retribution for their sins? Or do they think a few Hail Mary's and Our Father's will clean the slate?
Or do they know it's all hogwash and they've landed themselves in a pedophiles Nirvana?
the post isn't about paedophilia, it's about priests who are paedophiles.
ReplyDeleteAnyone else see that as ironic? Just me? At its roots, this post is about pedophilia. The last sentence is about the behavior and irony. The root of the post is about pedophilia. This post may also be about how it is ironic, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, the 1 thing that is holding this post together, it's thesis, is pedophilia and how rampant it is. It is so rampant that it is even effecting priests.
It's about the enormous apparent link between being a priest and being a rapist of children.
Since when is 4% an "enormous apparent link" By that measure anything can be an "enormous apparent link" to anything else. 4% of the kids who got an A on a test woke up 5 minutes before class. There is an enormous apparent link to waking up late and getting A's.
but i guess you don't like talking about that, Cuts a little too close to home, Doesn't it.
Even though that was not a question and had terrible grammar, I will answer it anyways. Yes and No. It is terrible that the children were abused, for sure. But it pedophilia IN GENERAL needs to be stopped. We need to stop it.
You would rather divert attention away from priests and on to paedophiles you feel a bit more comfortable condemning.
Listen numb nuts. I know it's hard for you "superior" brain to understand, but I have been condemning ALL pedophiles this entire time. You are focusing on something that has less than .111% chance of happening and not on something that has a 15% chance of happening. I think YOU are diverting attention to people you feel comfortable condemning.
How very fucking "christian".
Thanks, I do think condemning horrible people very Christian, thanks. I kinda needed that morale boost after being totally demolished by your impeccable and infallible logic. /sarcasm.
Believers are always claiming the high moral ground, citing God as their moral compass, and chastising non-believers as not having any.
ReplyDeleteI do not. God MAY help, it may not. Obviously not in this case. I know many non-believers who have a great moral compass.
I join Matt in questioning if these men really believe in god. Do they fear retribution for their sins? Or do they think a few Hail Mary's and Our Father's will clean the slate?
Or do they know it's all hogwash and they've landed themselves in a pedophiles Nirvana?
As do I.
but when you get down to the nuts and bolts, the 1 thing that is holding this post together, it's thesis, is pedophilia and how rampant it is. It is so rampant that it is even effecting priests.
ReplyDeleteSorry, d, but the thesis of the post is actually more narrowly defined as the percentage of pedophile Catholic priests. Your efforts to broaden the scope of the issue did not change the initial subject.
Matt's 7% would be correct, since he is basing that on the figures from 2002 forward.
I haven't checked your sources, but I will assume you have your figures correct and if by going back to 1950, the percentage drops to 4%, because of the additional 50+ years and 67K priests. This does not take into account that back in the 1950s and 60s people just did not report this type of abuse, so the numbers of cases could be far skewed from lack of reporting.
As to 7% or even 4% being a noticeable number, how would you feel about eating food that came from a company at which 7% or even 4% of the employees were found to have tainted the product on their line with botulism?
What if 7% or 4% of these priests were committing murder? Actually they are, of a sort. They are killing the psyche of the child.
I understand that you think this is terrible and should be stopped. I know that you're not letting the priests off the hook. I just think you're overreacting to Matt's bit of hyperbole about the "requirement" part.
I'm not trying to pick on you , but instead of sticking to what Matt wrote about and objecting to or agreeing with it, you had to bring in the "other" pedophiles. Frankly this happens quite often when this subject is discussed between believers and nonbelievers. It's almost as if by bringing up the "others", it somehow makes the priest pedophiles more normal. But usually our main point is that there is supposed to be this great morality that comes with having god in one's life, but the evidence just doesn't bear that out.
Any believer who claims moral superiority is not truly a believer.
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact believers are the only people who truly understand the level of depravity the human heart is capable of. Paul said he was the chief of sinners we do not claim to be any better than non-believers I assure you. As for the priests, well a couple of things here, one the catholic church is a false church, a cult if you will that deflects attention from Jesus onto the church itself and two the main issue in my opinion is the church making priests take a vow of celibacy. We are sexual creatures and our sex drive can overpower our rationality at times. If they would let priests marry it would go a long way towards stemming the problem.
In Christ
Alan
As to 7% or even 4% being a noticeable number, how would you feel about eating food that came from a company at which 7% or even 4% of the employees were found to have tainted the product on their line with botulism?
ReplyDeleteWell, let's put it this way. I have about a 33% chance of dying whenever I drive. I do not fear anything. But I see your point. Well botulism does suck, and I would want them fired and convicted not for me, but for others. They would need to be caught, and soon.
I haven't checked your sources, but I will assume you have your figures correct and if by going back to 1950, the percentage drops to 4%, because of the additional 50+ years and 67K priests.
But the number of pedophile priests has stayed the same, well for the most part. That's the part that is interesting to me.
What if 7% or 4% of these priests were committing murder?
We would need to stop it. You guys are misunderstanding me. We need to take both the priests who do this shit down as well as the others who do it.
I just think you're overreacting to Matt's bit of hyperbole about the "requirement" part.
Cause I am sick of Matt's bullshit and constant harassing of religious people. He acts like he knows everything and that he is better than any religious person. It honestly pisses me off. I know what he might say, everyone's entitled to their beliefs. Actually he wouldn't say that. He would say something like "Be quite moron, off topic. You are wrong about your beliefs even though I myself am not certain about my own."
Frankly this happens quite often when this subject is discussed between believers and nonbelievers. It's almost as if by bringing up the "others", it somehow makes the priest pedophiles more normal.
I am not trying to make them seem normal. I am trying to get you angry. I am trying to get you to say "Ya know what? We need to take them down. We need to do something about this."
But usually our main point is that there is supposed to be this great morality that comes with having god in one's life, but the evidence just doesn't bear that out.
I am actually against organized religion for that reason. When a person get into power, they are corrupted. Power corrupts, as the saying goes. It is very ironic though that I am a practicing Catholic. Ah well.
As a person who was abused as a boy by a agnostic, confused man, I think it is sad if we allow the focus on priests to take us from reality--it is terrible to abuse children. My own opinion is that far more than 7% of the population is engaged in sex with children. Recent laws in the Netherlands reducing certain forms of parental/child incest to a misdemeanor underscore what is a rip in the fabric of society and a shame to all of us. I don't see how being molested by a priestly "father" is worse than being molested by my biological father. I think certain persons take delight whenever a representative of a certain group is found to be the culprit (e.g., surely many relligous delight when something horrible is done by or, more likely, happens to a professing atheist, and atheists often find joy when a religious person commits a crime or violates his professed beliefs.) The very headline of this topic makes my point--it can be very misleading, not in that it is incorrect, but that it may leave the reader with the idea that catholic priests are the only ones engaged in this activity, or are engaging in it more often. Why is always teachers and priests in the news and no my father who molested me and my 3 siblings? I think it might be because children could be likely to report a non-family member, but that's just my own conclusion.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a victim of paedophilia in the form of incest, I would appeal to all humans to open up the close where we are hiding this very common crime. Shall we follow those "experts" who say that the real crime is making it a crime? (i.e., if it wasn't a crime the victims wouldn't suffer pschologically . .. . NOT!) , or shall we honestly deal with a huge problem across the world? Child sex is universally taboo with few exceptions, but universally more common that we will ever admit. So...while we spend our time in glee, roasting priests and engaging in lots of "Heh-heh, so that's Christianity!" comments, family and friends are hurting their own.
anonymous
ReplyDeleteI am sorry for what your father did to you. I hope you have had or are in counseling for it.
I, too, was abused as a child. I was repeatedly raped, molested, and ritually tortured by my religious grandfather. I know full well the seriousness of this subject.
No, it's not only teachers and priests; it's much more widespread than that. The problem is, people are STILL too ashamed or scared to come out in the open with their stories. Sometimes it's very hard to prove. I have friends whose kids were involved in a daycare case that made national headlines. The accused abusers got off, because all the kids were so young, the authorities really couldn't get useful information out of them. But by their behavior, and the nightmares and what they told their parents, it was pretty clear what they said was true. But there was no physical evidence.
d
I am not trying to make them seem normal. I am trying to get you angry. I am trying to get you to say "Ya know what? We need to take them down. We need to do something about this."
Oh, believe me,I'm plenty mad. I do want to take them down. All of them, not just the priests. But this post was about priests so I was sticking to the subject of priests.
And priests are even worse because they are such authority figures. This goes back to anonymous's question about how is it worse to be molested by a priest over being molested by his own father. I can't say that it is for certain. A boy's father is certainly an important authority figure to him. But the hierarchy is, the priest is an authority figure to the boy's father also. Right below God. If we're talking about believers, anyway. I forgot that anon said his dad was an agnostic.
Being molested or abused by someone you're supposed to be able to trust is absolutely devastating.
Sorry. I don't think I'm making any sense or hitting the point I was driving at and this is stirring up a lot of shit inside that I'd rather not stir up.