The thing that helps it be more likely with the Catholic church is the vow of celibacy. Isn't to say protestant ministers can't have massive sexual hangups or be abusers in their own right, but due to the vow of celibacy the Catholic priestdom might be more attractive to people who see their sexual instincts as immoral (whether they're gay and were told that their feelings are immoral, or are pedophiles and their feelings are indeed immoral).
You could be a straight man who only likes adult women and have a perfectly normal sexual life as a protestant minister.
Gross. Someone needs to teach these priests what the fuck consent means.
Consent is an alien concept to conservative Christian morals. It's all "honor God with your body" and "resist temptation" and "don't have sex outside marriage." Rape is a sin not because it's, you know, rape, but because it's (assumed to be) out of wedlock.
Christian sex ed taught me how to say "no, this is wrong," but not how to say "no, I don't want to." It was never discussed that people might have boundaries other than moral ones, let alone that those boundaries should be respected.
He actually calls it a "crime", which is a strong term for him to use.
Whether or not anything will actually change.. well.. who knows. No mention of active measures to do anything.
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Francis seems like he's moving as fast as he can on this considering church bureaucracy and dealing with the shit headed conservative element of the Church, who covered this shit up in the first place, doing as much as they can to stymie him from actually bringing the hammer down on the bastards.
Francis seems like he's moving as fast as he can on this considering church bureaucracy and dealing with the shit headed conservative element of the Church, who covered this shit up in the first place, doing as much as they can to stymie him from actually bringing the hammer down on the bastards.
Not really. For all the animosity people had for his anti-gay statements and so on, Benedict was much better about taking action on the sex abuse scandal.
Francis seems like he's moving as fast as he can on this considering church bureaucracy and dealing with the shit headed conservative element of the Church, who covered this shit up in the first place, doing as much as they can to stymie him from actually bringing the hammer down on the bastards.
Well, is he God's voice on earth or isn't he?
Also, for Francis to be moving fast on the issue, he'd need to be taking actions backs when he was still Jorge. It isn't as if there has been a sudden revelation of abuses within the church; just another dark chapter in a story that's been in the public eye pretty much my whole life.
Francis seems like he's moving as fast as he can on this considering church bureaucracy and dealing with the shit headed conservative element of the Church, who covered this shit up in the first place, doing as much as they can to stymie him from actually bringing the hammer down on the bastards.
Well, is he God's voice on earth or isn't he?
Also, for Francis to be moving fast on the issue, he'd need to be taking actions backs when he was still Jorge. It isn't as if there has been a sudden revelation of abuses within the church; just another dark chapter in a story that's been in the public eye pretty much my whole life.
The thing that helps it be more likely with the Catholic church is the vow of celibacy. Isn't to say protestant ministers can't have massive sexual hangups or be abusers in their own right, but due to the vow of celibacy the Catholic priestdom might be more attractive to people who see their sexual instincts as immoral (whether they're gay and were told that their feelings are immoral, or are pedophiles and their feelings are indeed immoral).
You could be a straight man who only likes adult women and have a perfectly normal sexual life as a protestant minister.
I think this is a big thing. There may be some people that can keep up a vow of celibacy, but it’s a pretty huge deal, a lot moreso than, say, not eating meat or something similar.
I know that celibacy is a thing in plenty of other religions, though, but I think Roman Catholicism is the only current Christian denomination that enforces it? I believe in the othodox church only certain higher level positions require it, and protestant branches are pretty much open season on getting married.
The Pope's status as God's voice on earth is limited in some pretty substantial ways, and when he's not specifically allowed to speak ex cathedra, and has not invoked it, *and* is not making the specific type of statement that's allowed to be ex cathedra, his statements are only owed "due respect," not compliance or agreement.
This power's only been invoked about once per century since the 1600's, and only seven times total in the surviving well-recorded history of the church.
I'm not even sure this fits the criteria for a situation where the Pope *can* invoke this power. Not that the clergy in the US hasn't been merrily ignoring Rome on just about every other issue for decades anyway, even if it were.
People have mentioned that it seems pedophiles must be seeking these positions (churches, youth sports), but I don't necessarily know that needs to be true to create these hotspots.
It's been a while since I read up on it, but when I last did the number of men who were (not necessarily exclusively) attracted to children to some degree was crazy high, like 20%-35% depending on the study. And that's not 'minors', since that number is closer to 90%+. Children.
I recall one that was focused on male grad students and had a third were attracted, and a third of those who were attracted would act on those impulses if there weren't consequences--I'm not sure if that just meant legal/societal consequences or included moral ones, though.
Anyway, I say this to point out you don't necessarily need to be attracting pedophiles to a career to have a lot of child molesters in that career. Just creating an environment of unaccountable power over the vulnerable is enough.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
The Pope's status as God's voice on earth is limited in some pretty substantial ways, and when he's not specifically allowed to speak ex cathedra, and has not invoked it, *and* is not making the specific type of statement that's allowed to be ex cathedra, his statements are only owed "due respect," not compliance or agreement.
This power's only been invoked about once per century since the 1600's, and only seven times total in the surviving well-recorded history of the church.
I'm not even sure this fits the criteria for a situation where the Pope *can* invoke this power. Not that the clergy in the US hasn't been merrily ignoring Rome on just about every other issue for decades anyway, even if it were.
yep
the concept of papal infallibility is a relatively new one, and still fairly controversial
People have mentioned that it seems pedophiles must be seeking these positions (churches, youth sports), but I don't necessarily know that needs to be true to create these hotspots.
It's been a while since I read up on it, but when I last did the number of men who were (not necessarily exclusively) attracted to children to some degree was crazy high, like 20%-35% depending on the study. And that's not 'minors', since that number is closer to 90%+. Children.
I recall one that was focused on male grad students and had a third were attracted, and a third of those who were attracted would act on those impulses if there weren't consequences--I'm not sure if that just meant legal/societal consequences or included moral ones, though.
Anyway, I say this to point out you don't necessarily need to be attracting pedophiles to a career to have a lot of child molesters in that career. Just creating an environment of unaccountable power over the vulnerable is enough.
I think if I was going to say a fifth to a third of men are nascent pedophiles, I think I would have that study in hand.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Here's a more thorough general look through the existing data https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/ which places true pedophilia, i.e. active behavioral engagement with pedophilia lower, somewhere between 1 and 3.8%. It also discusses the one I just linked, but notes that it looked into fantasies more than active pedophiliac behaviors. This one also notes early on that only about half of child molesters seem to be pedophiles in terms of specific attraction, the other half are just using children out of access/convenience.
I also saw references to penile volumetry tests which are more accurate than not, but not great, which throw up numbers between 17 and 50% for 'getting aroused by children under 12'. I remember this type of test being one of the ones I saw with a 20-30% number, but I'm having trouble finding ones that aren't just testing already incarcerated populations of child molesters.
It's worth noting this all of this is specifically looking at clinical pedophilia and hebephilia, i.e. attraction to pre-pubescent and pubescent children. Moving past puberty changes things significantly, such that there's even less need for some unique deviant sexual interest rather than just 'being a rapist scumbag' to explain it.
The thing that helps it be more likely with the Catholic church is the vow of celibacy. Isn't to say protestant ministers can't have massive sexual hangups or be abusers in their own right, but due to the vow of celibacy the Catholic priestdom might be more attractive to people who see their sexual instincts as immoral (whether they're gay and were told that their feelings are immoral, or are pedophiles and their feelings are indeed immoral).
You could be a straight man who only likes adult women and have a perfectly normal sexual life as a protestant minister.
It also doesn't help that the Catholic church has a culture of secrecy and famously protects its own.
If you're a predator who wants a position of power over a lot of kids and want to be protected once you're inevitably found out, the Catholic church is the ideal organization to join.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
In yet another blow to the Catholic Church in the United States, Illinois' attorney general says the state's six dioceses have failed to disclose accusations of sexual abuse against at least 500 priests and clergy members.
Illinois' dioceses have released lists publicly identifying 185 clergy members who had been credibly accused of child sex abuse. But state Attorney General Lisa Madigan said preliminary findings in her investigation reveal that the church failed to disclose sexual abuse allegations against at least 500 additional priests and clergy members.
In many cases, the accusations have "not been adequately investigated by the dioceses or not investigated at all," Madigan's office said in a statement Wednesday. What's more, the statement added, the church often failed to notify law enforcement authorities or the state's Department of Children and Family Services about the allegations.
For more than three decades, Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus served as a retirement repository for at least 20 Jesuit priests accused of sexual misconduct that predominantly took place in small, isolated Alaska Native villages and on Indian reservations across the Northwest, an investigation by the Northwest News Network and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found.
A trove of internal Jesuit correspondence shows a longstanding pattern of Jesuit officials in the Oregon Province — an administrative area that included Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho and Alaska — privately acknowledging issues of inappropriate sexual behavior, but not releasing that information to the public, which avoided scandal and protected the perpetrators from prosecution.
When abuse was discovered, the priests would be reassigned, sometimes to another Native community.
Once the abusive priests reached retirement age, the Jesuits moved them to Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus or another Jesuit residence, to comfortably spend the rest of their lives in relative peace and safety. The university administration did not respond to requests for an interview to answer whether the administration or student body were aware of the presence of known sexual offenders on campus.
This isn't going to end. The floodgates are opening, and the Church should be looking to serve justice, not their ego.
In yet another blow to the Catholic Church in the United States, Illinois' attorney general says the state's six dioceses have failed to disclose accusations of sexual abuse against at least 500 priests and clergy members.
Illinois' dioceses have released lists publicly identifying 185 clergy members who had been credibly accused of child sex abuse. But state Attorney General Lisa Madigan said preliminary findings in her investigation reveal that the church failed to disclose sexual abuse allegations against at least 500 additional priests and clergy members.
In many cases, the accusations have "not been adequately investigated by the dioceses or not investigated at all," Madigan's office said in a statement Wednesday. What's more, the statement added, the church often failed to notify law enforcement authorities or the state's Department of Children and Family Services about the allegations.
For more than three decades, Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus served as a retirement repository for at least 20 Jesuit priests accused of sexual misconduct that predominantly took place in small, isolated Alaska Native villages and on Indian reservations across the Northwest, an investigation by the Northwest News Network and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting has found.
A trove of internal Jesuit correspondence shows a longstanding pattern of Jesuit officials in the Oregon Province — an administrative area that included Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho and Alaska — privately acknowledging issues of inappropriate sexual behavior, but not releasing that information to the public, which avoided scandal and protected the perpetrators from prosecution.
When abuse was discovered, the priests would be reassigned, sometimes to another Native community.
Once the abusive priests reached retirement age, the Jesuits moved them to Cardinal Bea House on Gonzaga's campus or another Jesuit residence, to comfortably spend the rest of their lives in relative peace and safety. The university administration did not respond to requests for an interview to answer whether the administration or student body were aware of the presence of known sexual offenders on campus.
This isn't going to end. The floodgates are opening, and the Church should be looking to serve justice, not their ego.
What does justice even look like in this situation?
like
how do you even begin to make reparations for this.
I'm not sure, I think it should start with the churches being sued into Oblivion, including selling church property, seizure if church assets,
That's a good start. And might help with reparations for the victims.
I'd be more inclined to try and go with aiding and abetting, or accessory after the fact, or something. They knew these assholes were molesting children, and did not report it to civilian authorities. I think criminal charges are appropriate, and shows that society are unaccepting of "the church will handle it, in-house".
Gross. Someone needs to teach these priests what the fuck consent means.
Consent is an alien concept to conservative Christian morals. It's all "honor God with your body" and "resist temptation" and "don't have sex outside marriage." Rape is a sin not because it's, you know, rape, but because it's (assumed to be) out of wedlock.
Christian sex ed taught me how to say "no, this is wrong," but not how to say "no, I don't want to." It was never discussed that people might have boundaries other than moral ones, let alone that those boundaries should be respected.
I don't know what denomination that is, but Tamar and Amnon is a clear example of rape being wrong for its own sake.
And David's favoritism and protection of Amnon lead to a very predictable, and avoidable, result.
There is a local daycare that had employed a sexual predator. When it came out that he had molested several children, he was arrested and charged, but so was the daycare director. She had apparently known about the abuse and did not report it, which is a crime.
I don’t see how churches can be an exception to that. Failure to report child abuse is a serious crime.
There is a local daycare that had employed a sexual predator. When it came out that he had molested several children, he was arrested and charged, but so was the daycare director. She had apparently known about the abuse and did not report it, which is a crime.
I don’t see how churches can be an exception to that. Failure to report child abuse is a serious crime.
I have a hard time understanding why we can't just RICO the lot of them.
There is a local daycare that had employed a sexual predator. When it came out that he had molested several children, he was arrested and charged, but so was the daycare director. She had apparently known about the abuse and did not report it, which is a crime.
I don’t see how churches can be an exception to that. Failure to report child abuse is a serious crime.
I have a hard time understanding why we can't just RICO the lot of them.
Because religion, basically.
Openly attacking the Catholic Church will lose politicians voters.
Gross. Someone needs to teach these priests what the fuck consent means.
Consent is an alien concept to conservative Christian morals. It's all "honor God with your body" and "resist temptation" and "don't have sex outside marriage." Rape is a sin not because it's, you know, rape, but because it's (assumed to be) out of wedlock.
Christian sex ed taught me how to say "no, this is wrong," but not how to say "no, I don't want to." It was never discussed that people might have boundaries other than moral ones, let alone that those boundaries should be respected.
I don't know what denomination that is, but Tamar and Amnon is a clear example of rape being wrong for its own sake.
And David's favoritism and protection of Amnon lead to a very predictable, and avoidable, result.
To extend the story, after having his way with her, he tells he to get the fuck out of his place, which she (and by extension, Jewish law) thinks is a worse crime than the actual rape. Because she’s soiled goods.
Also, it’s portrayed as a bad thing because.... she’s his half sister.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
The Jehovah's Witnesses also were keeping their own secret database of tens of thousands of child molesters for the last couple decades at least, which they had been covering up. It's all very similar to the Catholic Church coverups, and probably all the organized religious groups do similar things.
Posts
Link?
http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishopsletters/7730-letter-scandal.html
Same as it ever was. I wonder if the church or his parishioners will chastise him first...
He's a bishop. He doesn't really have parishioners.
Saying that as a Catholic who learned it, then went to a Jesuit school where I unlearned it and had actual psychology courses.
You could be a straight man who only likes adult women and have a perfectly normal sexual life as a protestant minister.
Consent is an alien concept to conservative Christian morals. It's all "honor God with your body" and "resist temptation" and "don't have sex outside marriage." Rape is a sin not because it's, you know, rape, but because it's (assumed to be) out of wedlock.
Christian sex ed taught me how to say "no, this is wrong," but not how to say "no, I don't want to." It was never discussed that people might have boundaries other than moral ones, let alone that those boundaries should be respected.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/pope-francis-response-sexual-abuse_us_5b7a9ebfe4b0a5b1febd0318
He actually calls it a "crime", which is a strong term for him to use.
Whether or not anything will actually change.. well.. who knows. No mention of active measures to do anything.
Well, is he God's voice on earth or isn't he?
Also, for Francis to be moving fast on the issue, he'd need to be taking actions backs when he was still Jorge. It isn't as if there has been a sudden revelation of abuses within the church; just another dark chapter in a story that's been in the public eye pretty much my whole life.
It's still a bureaucracy.
I think this is a big thing. There may be some people that can keep up a vow of celibacy, but it’s a pretty huge deal, a lot moreso than, say, not eating meat or something similar.
I know that celibacy is a thing in plenty of other religions, though, but I think Roman Catholicism is the only current Christian denomination that enforces it? I believe in the othodox church only certain higher level positions require it, and protestant branches are pretty much open season on getting married.
This power's only been invoked about once per century since the 1600's, and only seven times total in the surviving well-recorded history of the church.
I'm not even sure this fits the criteria for a situation where the Pope *can* invoke this power. Not that the clergy in the US hasn't been merrily ignoring Rome on just about every other issue for decades anyway, even if it were.
It's been a while since I read up on it, but when I last did the number of men who were (not necessarily exclusively) attracted to children to some degree was crazy high, like 20%-35% depending on the study. And that's not 'minors', since that number is closer to 90%+. Children.
I recall one that was focused on male grad students and had a third were attracted, and a third of those who were attracted would act on those impulses if there weren't consequences--I'm not sure if that just meant legal/societal consequences or included moral ones, though.
Anyway, I say this to point out you don't necessarily need to be attracting pedophiles to a career to have a lot of child molesters in that career. Just creating an environment of unaccountable power over the vulnerable is enough.
yep
the concept of papal infallibility is a relatively new one, and still fairly controversial
I think if I was going to say a fifth to a third of men are nascent pedophiles, I think I would have that study in hand.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Here's a more thorough general look through the existing data https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478390/ which places true pedophilia, i.e. active behavioral engagement with pedophilia lower, somewhere between 1 and 3.8%. It also discusses the one I just linked, but notes that it looked into fantasies more than active pedophiliac behaviors. This one also notes early on that only about half of child molesters seem to be pedophiles in terms of specific attraction, the other half are just using children out of access/convenience.
I also saw references to penile volumetry tests which are more accurate than not, but not great, which throw up numbers between 17 and 50% for 'getting aroused by children under 12'. I remember this type of test being one of the ones I saw with a 20-30% number, but I'm having trouble finding ones that aren't just testing already incarcerated populations of child molesters.
It's worth noting this all of this is specifically looking at clinical pedophilia and hebephilia, i.e. attraction to pre-pubescent and pubescent children. Moving past puberty changes things significantly, such that there's even less need for some unique deviant sexual interest rather than just 'being a rapist scumbag' to explain it.
My "almost became a nun" sister and "participates in perpetual adoration chapel" mother are having crises of faith right now.
Also it turns out that one of the priests in question was from my dad's high school in one of the grades while he was there too.
There's a lot in that article.
Monstrous things.
I hope that organization faces some measure of justice.
It also doesn't help that the Catholic church has a culture of secrecy and famously protects its own.
If you're a predator who wants a position of power over a lot of kids and want to be protected once you're inevitably found out, the Catholic church is the ideal organization to join.
As the article makes clear, these are not isolated incidents. They are systemic and pervasive.
https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/religion/article219794265.html
Sacramento diocese is doing the same.
Looks like a few others are, too.
Also, it's come out that the Jesuits housed what was a retirement home for predatory priests at Gonzaga University:
This isn't going to end. The floodgates are opening, and the Church should be looking to serve justice, not their ego.
What does justice even look like in this situation?
like
how do you even begin to make reparations for this.
I'd be more inclined to try and go with aiding and abetting, or accessory after the fact, or something. They knew these assholes were molesting children, and did not report it to civilian authorities. I think criminal charges are appropriate, and shows that society are unaccepting of "the church will handle it, in-house".
I don't know what denomination that is, but Tamar and Amnon is a clear example of rape being wrong for its own sake.
And David's favoritism and protection of Amnon lead to a very predictable, and avoidable, result.
I don’t see how churches can be an exception to that. Failure to report child abuse is a serious crime.
I have a hard time understanding why we can't just RICO the lot of them.
Because religion, basically.
Openly attacking the Catholic Church will lose politicians voters.
To extend the story, after having his way with her, he tells he to get the fuck out of his place, which she (and by extension, Jewish law) thinks is a worse crime than the actual rape. Because she’s soiled goods.
Also, it’s portrayed as a bad thing because.... she’s his half sister.
WoW
Dear Satan.....