|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Ignorant Bigot
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is it no longer widely believed that sexual abuse has to do with power and intimidation, and not sexual gratification per se? I've been out of the loop and new studies may have arisen since I was reading about rape in the mid 1980s.
Nope, current research has strengthened the link between sexual violence (both when the victims are children and when the victims are adults) and power/intimidation. However, people like Ingo and Dumples rarely let silly little things like facts and reality get in the way of their prejudices.
[ 24. January 2010, 21:11: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
teddybear
Shipmate
# 7842
|
Posted
As a survivor of sexual abuse by a religious brother, I think IngoB is full of crap. My abuser abused both boys and girls. Many of the abusers I've come across did both. In my opinion, it is just that the girls get less attention in the press. Whether it is because it doesn't make as good a story or because homosexuality is considered a worse crime, I don't know. I am also firmly in the camp that says this sort of behavior has less to do with sex, than it does abuse of power. My abuser did it to me (and others) because he could. He made it very clear that I couldn't do anything about it, because no one would believe me if I told. When I did go to the bishop about it, I was told to keep quiet so not to cause scandal for the church, that he'd take care of it. He didn't. The jerk was allowed to go on abusing for another 30 years or so! He was also allowed to move freely from diocese to diocese.
--------------------
My cooking blog: http://inthekitchenwithdon.blogspot.com/
Posts: 480 | From: Topeka, Kansas USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Want to play the spurious ad-hominem game?
That was more a reductio ad absurdum of the ideologies competing for your headspace...
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Your beloved Catholic church produces clergy with a proclivity for sexual offense that is only exceeded by one other kind of institution: prisons.
At worst one can say that Catholic clergy is no better in this regard than comparable professionals. Why do you spread FUD?
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
You'll keep defending the decisions of your spiritual leaders, for religious reasons. They do not, however, seem particularly well-conceived to anyone else not thus hobbled.
The decisions of the bishops covering up the scandal were in some sense worse than the actions of the sex offenders themselves. A wolf attacking lambs is more understandable than a shepherd moving a wolf from one herd to the next while hiding the bones best he can. Yet again, one sees the same patterns emerge among teachers and their superiors.
The idea that these abuse structures are somehow special to Catholic clergy is simply false. The only thing that is perhaps indeed special about all this, is the strong prevalence of male-male abuse. Concerning this, QLib has probably a point above.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Birdseye, why do people continue to place priests on a pedestal? Priests are human. Even the ones who don't have problems with their sexuality (a minority I think) have other sins to deal with.
Setting priests up to fail always seemed to be an excuse to blame God for being to hard on us. After all if Father What a Waist can fail, maybe my failure isn't so bad after all.
As for betrayed authority being worse, I think it's better. Each case of abuse is individual and subjects of abuse have wildly varying experiences. But in general teens need to learn to question authority early and often.
I simply refuse to believe most of these teens didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Maybe they didn't have the experience to understand why, but both RC and cultural teachings condemn homosexuality and adult-child sex.
By seducing these children into having sex before they had worked out their own thoughts and feelings about these subjects the priests did these teens a grave disservice. But that's just as true for other molesters as well. Priests aren't special in this.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... in general teens need to learn to question authority early and often.
When authoritative institutions start teaching it, kids can start learning it. But my experience has been that the Catholic Church (for one) isn't too hot on the idea of its authority being questioned.
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
... Priests aren't special in this.
Priests aren't special at all. But the problem is that people think they are - and certain priests (let's say they're just being human) are happy to let people do so. Priests are seen as intermediaries between believers and God. That puts them in a position of power with few parallels.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Dumpling Jeff: quote:
I simply refuse to believe most of these teens didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Maybe they didn't have the experience to understand why, but both RC and cultural teachings condemn homosexuality and adult-child sex.
By seducing these children into having sex before they had worked out their own thoughts and feelings about these subjects the priests did these teens a grave disservice. But that's just as true for other molesters as well. Priests aren't special in this.
So, the victims take part of the blame for the perpetrators doing them a "grave disservice".
Here's a second vote for DJ being "one sick puppy".
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Kankucho, the RCC teaches the supremacy of the individual conscience. This is a firm teaching of the Church through the centuries. It also contrasts with many (most?) other religions. Questioning authority is what we do.
Of course we also feel there's a right answer to those questions.
Priests are special in a liturgical sense. Pro basketball players are special in an athletic sense, so this quality is not unique. It should not give them authority beyond teaching faith and morals. It certainly doesn't extend to sexual misconduct.
Lyda*Rose, why do you seek to blame the victims? Can't you accept that as the injured party they, not society, should decide how to handle the consequences of their behavior.
If they decide that sex is fun, that's their business. If they decide to put their teenage indiscretions behind them, it's equally their business. I don't think society should judge or punish them.
The molester's fault lies in denying the teen the ability to decide for himself. The molester stole the child's will before it was formed. It's not because sex is evil.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Kankucho, the RCC teaches the supremacy of the individual conscience. This is a firm teaching of the Church through the centuries. It also contrasts with many (most?) other religions. Questioning authority is what we do.
Of course we also feel there's a right answer to those questions.
And who is included in the 'We' that serves up those answers?
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Priests are special in a liturgical sense. Pro basketball players are special in an athletic sense, so this quality is not unique. It should not give them authority beyond teaching faith and morals.
Damn right it shouldn't. But it does.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I am invoking Dumpling's law, which is that:
When creepy Jeff starts talking about sex, the thread is officially a trainwreck and should be abandoned.
Seconded.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
We are the one's who answered the questions in much the same way. We don't insist that others reach the same answers, but we do think they're the right answers.
I went to RC school until the second grade when my parents divorced. I left the RCC, then was born again and came back.
I did miss out on the nuns and rulers brigade. I hear it left a bitter taste in many former school children's lives.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I am invoking Dumpling's law, which is that:
When creepy Jeff starts talking about sex, the thread is officially a trainwreck and should be abandoned.
Seconded.
All those in favor, shudder in horrified disgust.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
QLib has probably a point above.
Agreed. Simply screening for sexual orientation when sex of any orientation is supposed to be suppressed is completely missing the point of the problem.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...Typing "teenage boys" into google image search with SafeSearch switched off should provide some circumstantial evidence...
Okay, just out of curiosity I tried it. Most of the images that turned up were pictures of "cute haircuts," with a little of the other mixed in.
I suspect that by refusing to let its priests marry (a rule added relatively late in the game, so that the Church could hang onto property that would otherwise go to children), the Roman Catholic Church is guaranteeing that a high percentage of candidates will be men whose orientation is homosexual. That does not, of course, imply that most or even many of them will act on anything sexual, but it does increase the odds.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuzzipeg
Shipmate
# 10107
|
Posted
Ex Rossweisser: I suspect that by refusing to let its priests marry (a rule added relatively late in the game, so that the Church could hang onto property that would otherwise go to children), the Roman Catholic Church is guaranteeing that a high percentage of candidates will be men whose orientation is homosexual.
Part one is true but your conclusion is nonsense unless you have figures to back it up. It's as ridiculous as assuming that sexual orientation has anything to do with a tendency to abuse.
--------------------
http://foodybooze.blogspot.co.za
Posts: 929 | From: Johannesburg, South Africa | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The decisions of the bishops covering up the scandal were in some sense worse than the actions of the sex offenders themselves. A wolf attacking lambs is more understandable than a shepherd moving a wolf from one herd to the next while hiding the bones best he can.
So why did The Vatican arrange for his Eminent Pimpness Bernard Cardinal Law to stay out of prison and is he still in several top-jobs in the Curia?
Apparently the divinely guaranteed leadership of our church rather rewards the wolfs than do the right thing.
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Fuzzipeg -
I think Rossweisse is saying that heterosexuals might be dissuaded from seeking ordinations because they want to marry, whereas homosexuals mostly don't want to marry anyway so they don't have that particular dissuasion from entering the priesthood. Therefore there is likely to be a lower proportion of heterosexuals among Catholic clergy than in the population as a whole.
Which seems reasonable to me, though I don't know whether it's true.
[Cross-posted]
[ 25. January 2010, 10:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
For what it is worth, in my neck of the woods I suspect there are at least two other relevant factors.
With the provision that I might be wrong in giving too much credence to stereotypes:
1. Male gays may be more into caring professions than male straights.
2. The smells-and-bells part of being a RC priest may attract males who are into campiness.
(And yes, I'm aware that campiness isn't the exclusive domain of gays.)
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
3. They're into wearing frocks
4. They like saying 'Aah! Men!'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
opaWim
Shipmate
# 11137
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Kankucho, the RCC teaches the supremacy of the individual conscience. This is a firm teaching of the Church through the centuries.
Sure.
But in my experience, in the real world, as soon as a RC finds himself -in conscience- in disagreement with the RCC, in matters where there is no "prudent" or "pastoral" way to ignore the problem, suddenly other supremacies emerge that firmly overrule the supremacy of conscience.
[ 25. January 2010, 11:27: Message edited by: opaWim ]
--------------------
It's the Thirties all over again, possibly even worse.
Posts: 524 | From: The Marshes | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Dumpling Jeff: quote:
Lyda*Rose, why do you seek to blame the victims? Can't you accept that as the injured party they, not society, should decide how to handle the consequences of their behavior.
Is this your idea of "irony" or something? ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Geez Louise, you are not only a sick puppy but a dumbass puppy! Look again: quote:
I simply refuse to believe most of these teens didn't know what they were doing was wrong.
You are the one who was saying that surely those young teenagers knew what they were doing was wrong, and you are the one who characterized the criminal assaults on them as being merely a "grave disservice". I summarized. Now, I can only assume that to you the priests are the victims.
I wouldn't allow a teenager near you, you twisted fart.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
One of the scandals about the Irish clerical child-abuse reports was not just the fact of its happening. Or even of its happening in the institutions supposedly set up for the protection and nurture of the thousands who were abused.
What equally scandalized, and also rocked the faith in the Roman Catholic Church of many ordinary people, was the revelation that the Institution itself had sacrificed its Christian duty towards the vulnerable and defenceless, to its own interests. In other words, in a very significant way, the Church was working a mission, not to work out the gospel of Christ, but to protect itself. And, additionally, that it was using its right to unquestioned exercise of authority over the faithful to do so; a peculiar and well-recognized claim of the whole RCC institution.
Unbelievably, even now, the country still waits for some significant communication from the Pope to the people of Ireland on all this.
In saying that, it's certainly acknowledged that along with the bad there was the good, too. Much damage has been done to good work and fine ministries, unfortunately.
If one wishes to claim that 'the Church' is always 'the Church' in an infallible sense of its authority and mission, despite the fallibility of its actual members, then one would seriously have to consider that at some point 'the Church' in Ireland ceased to be 'the Church' as instituted by the authority in Rome.
In other words, that what passed for the institution of the Catholic Church in Ireland had somehow separated itself from the Mother. It's hard to see how else one could both witness the deep institutional corruption that has occurred in Ireland, and yet simultaneously claim that that instituion - 'the Church' - remains unassailable in its primary mission and authority.
'the Church', by the way is not scare-quoted to be sarky or anything! It's just to define that I mean specifically the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, rather than a universal Church of all believers made up of the rest of us. That's all. I have a great deal of respect for my Catholic colleagues here and what they do, and it is a challenge for all of us to learn from what is happening through these dreadful scandals.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is it no longer widely believed that sexual abuse has to do with power and intimidation, and not sexual gratification per se? I've been out of the loop and new studies may have arisen since I was reading about rape in the mid 1980s.
Exactly.
In other words, Ingo's argument collapses at the first hurdle because it assumes that committing same-sex abuse of adolescents or children indicates that the abuser is gay. This is simply not the case.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is it no longer widely believed that sexual abuse has to do with power and intimidation, and not sexual gratification per se? I've been out of the loop and new studies may have arisen since I was reading about rape in the mid 1980s.
Exactly.
In other words, Ingo's argument collapses at the first hurdle because it assumes that committing same-sex abuse of adolescents or children indicates that the abuser is gay. This is simply not the case.
No, no, no. You have misunderstood completely! I am confident that IngoB will be along soon claiming that was never his argument.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
IngoB - do you believe homosexuals are more likely to abuse children / adolescents than heterosexuals?
I have no idea, since I have not studied the question. I have however no a priori reason to assume so.
On one level, IngoB is a very wise man. He studiously avoids studying questions to which he suspects he might not like the answer. The world would be a quieter place if there were more like him.
A worse place by far, to be sure. But quieter.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Lyda*Rose, I differentiate between RC moral theology, criminal law, civil law, and popular culture.
From The perspective of RC moral theology, homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not, the vast majority of these kids were brought up with that system.
As adults most of us move past the black/white, right/wrong, sex is sinful beliefs we had as a child, but these kids were seduced into sex before they had a chance to make that movement.
So they would see what they did as wrong. But that doesn't mean they can't move on from there afterwards. We as a society should not place the added burden of our social disdain on them as well. And if you think having society tell them, "What the priest did to them ruined them for life." doesn't add to their burden, your an idiot.
As for "merely a grave disservice", grave is as bad as it gets in the RC sin structure. Grave sins become mortal through culpability. I came as close to condemning these priests to hell as my theology allows. There isn't really anything worse out there except God's judgment which I'm not privy to. It is certainly worse than any earthly, criminal punishment.
Siani Sais, I think Ingo's argument was that the ratio of offenders to non-offenders was far higher in the gay population. There does seem to be a slight increase here(50%ish), but I think Ingo was using the statistics for gays in the community at large rather than in the priesthood. Falsely using those statistics the ratio is about ten times (1000%ish) as high.
On it's own I don't think a 50% increase is enough to disallow gays in the priesthood. I do think allowing someone who flaunts the values he's supposed to be teaching is a bad idea though.
Of course there are those who think one abused child is enough condemn the innocent with the guilty, but clearly I'm not one of those.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
I call bullshit on those figures. I am not suggesting that IngoB made them up, but they are clearly bollocks.
I suspect they may be using the definition of abuse that includes 'someone looked at you and it made you uncomfortable.'
They are. They have what they call three levels of sexual misconduct by a teacher. Only one of them would be illegal. The middle one might be things that would attract disciplinary action from the school.
They include things like looking at a girl's breasts, or hugging a boy who has just scored a goal, or using explicit sexual language in a biology lesson in a way that makes some children uncomfortable.
Now teachers ought not to do those things (well, maybe expect the biology lesson - I suspect that there is no way of teaching biology without using language that someone, somewhere objects to - the same probably goes for literature) But they aren't what most people mean by "abuse".
The idea that "up to 5%" (see, no real numbers) of teachers in New York City in 1995 were guilty of "misconduct" on that level is hardly "astounding".
Also basing national policy on a sample of 225 teachers from one city who had been accused of sexual misconduct but only 35% of them found guilty of anything is statistical crud.
If we were to believe those rather oddly-named writers we'd need some better data from the 15 years since they published.
There has been no real evidence mentioned on this thred to support the idea that Roman Catholic priests are either more or less likely to abuse children than other ministers of religion, though various posters have claimed both. (I have no idea whether they are or not, having no evidence for it).
And the papers IngoB referred to to support his assertion that teachers are more likely to be involved in sexual abuse show no such thing.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I wouldn't allow a teenager near you, you twisted fart.
Jeff is beyond twisted. He's completely sprained.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...They have what they call three levels of sexual misconduct by a teacher. ...They include things like ...hugging a boy who has just scored a goal...
Hugging is totally forbidden for teachers? Genuine question.
Interestingly, it's allowed for clergy if done in a suitable and safe way (CofE guidelines on protecting vulnerable adults, example given re using physical contact such as a hug for people with a disability but in the context of them not being left out of this if it's being offered to others). It's also standard good practice to use appropriate physical contact for example for some children on the autism spectrum (with consent) as part of an open and safe therapeutic and 'settling' way of interacting and learning.
Why we as a society can't often manage to tell the difference between/outcomes of a hug of caring done in an open way in a classroom/church setting and some sinister sexual abuse or grooming is what worries me.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The idea that "up to 5%" (see, no real numbers) of teachers in New York City in 1995 were guilty of "misconduct" on that level is hardly "astounding".
Especially since New York has a very poor record of sticking up for its teachers.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Amber wrote, quote:
Why we as a society can't often manage to tell the difference between/outcomes of a hug of caring done in an open way in a classroom/church setting and some sinister sexual abuse or grooming is what worries me.
Because the difference is totally subjective?
I would add that anyone can tell the difference but no one can define it -- except pedophiles get away with the hug thing all the time, so apparently people can't tell the difference either.
Banning hugging is a terrible solution because children need physical contact to develop normally (they die without it).
Other than dropping the paranoia over child sexual abuse, I can't think of a solution.
But then I don't have any children (or contact with children) so it's not my problem. All you parents feel free to live in fear. (Apparently of me if I'm reading Lyda*Rose correctly.)
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Tell it, brother Marvin.
DJ:
quote:
From The perspective of RC moral theology, homosexuality is a sin. Like it or not, the vast majority of these kids were brought up with that system.
As adults most of us move past the black/white, right/wrong, sex is sinful beliefs we had as a child, but these kids were seduced into sex before they had a chance to make that movement.
So they would see what they did as wrong. But that doesn't mean they can't move on from there afterwards. We as a society should not place the added burden of our social disdain on them as well. And if you think having society tell them, "What the priest did to them ruined them for life." doesn't add to their burden, your an idiot.
What I've heard is the victims say that they were very damaged by their assaults, not that they were "ruined for life" by committing some sort of sin. If some feel this way, it's part and parcel of the recovery they work on resulting from the violation by their religious "superiors". And you are one of the few jerks I've heard assess moral responsibility or "social disdain" for them by assigning them blame for events they had very little power to control physically or psychologically. If anyone adds to their burdens, it's people like you. You are as good as saying the victims of clergy abuse were "asking for it" and need to recover morally. Excuse me while I hurl on your shoes.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
All you parents feel free to live in fear. (Apparently of me if I'm reading Lyda*Rose correctly.)
Women don't want you to touch them because you're scary, it's because you're creepy and quite a sad little sack of a human and give off the impression that whatever you touch you leave a greasy film on, much like a slug.
'Cept slugs are cuter.
[ 25. January 2010, 17:17: Message edited by: Spiffy ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
originally posted by opawim:
quote:
2. The smells-and-bells part of being a RC priest may attract males who are into campiness.
You might be able to argue this line of thought if this were in fact true of Roman Catholicism in Ireland - but it's not. You would be very, very hard pushed to find what some would classify as 'high' or a 'smells n bells' Roman Catholic Church anywhere in Ireland. They do exist, but are as rare as hens teeth. But maybe you still have a point though, cos in Ireland the abusive priests mainly came from evangelical style churches - normally classed a 'low'; so maybe gays are attracted to 'low' churches. Then again, this whole ridiculous line of thought may in fact be more about your own stupid and inane bias and a wonderful demonstration of your own ignorance.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Nope, current research has strengthened the link between sexual violence (both when the victims are children and when the victims are adults) and power/intimidation.
If this sexual violence we are talking about was purely about power / intimidation, then it would not differentiate between boys and girls. But it does, massively so. No other explanation has been advanced for the fact that boys were in 80-90% of the cases the targets, and not girls. Sexual preference does explain the data easily, so for now it remains unrivaled as hypothesized cause for the selection.
It may be that the difference is due to the age of the victims (mostly adolescent for priestly abuse). The serious claims I've heard so far is that pedophilia often has no sexual preference. However, the data quoted in Wikipedia under Child Sexual Abuse do not seem to confirm this straightforwardly: Most perpetrators are men, most victims are girls. Most abuse of boys is by women. So I frankly do not know what the general situation is, even concerning pedophilia.
quote:
Originally posted by teddybear:
As a survivor of sexual abuse by a religious brother, I think IngoB is full of crap. My abuser abused both boys and girls.
Fair warning: If you insist on using your individual story of suffering as argument in Hell, I'll deal with it as an argument in Hell, not as your story of suffering. It's your choice.
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Agreed. Simply screening for sexual orientation when sex of any orientation is supposed to be suppressed is completely missing the point of the problem.
Of course, as far as "curing the problem" of sexual abuse of minors is concerned, it likely does nothing. However, as far as "keeping the problem out of the RCC" is concerned - that's a different question.
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
I suspect that by refusing to let its priests marry ..., the Roman Catholic Church is guaranteeing that a high percentage of candidates will be men whose orientation is homosexual.
Well, it is apparently true in practice that a larger fraction of priests is homosexual than among men in general. Nevertheless, I think there are deeper issues here. Clearly, a priest is giving up sex anyway, so why would that be more attractive to gays? If the underlying scenario is that heterosexual priests in their own mind sacrifice something good, whereas homosexual priests think they combat something evil, then whether one agrees with the value judgment or not, a clear emotional difference would exist with possible consequences down the track.
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
So why did The Vatican arrange for his Eminent Pimpness Bernard Cardinal Law to stay out of prison and is he still in several top-jobs in the Curia?
I do not know enough to comment, really, but I certainly do not assume that the Vatican comes up with one good decision after the next.
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In other words, Ingo's argument collapses at the first hurdle because it assumes that committing same-sex abuse of adolescents or children indicates that the abuser is gay.
See above. It's not me who has considerable explaining to do. If the priests were not "gay" in some loose definition of the term, then why did they target almost exclusively boys?
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
On one level, IngoB is a very wise man. He studiously avoids studying questions to which he suspects he might not like the answer. The world would be a quieter place if there were more like him. A worse place by far, to be sure. But quieter.
Given that you ride in on such a high horse, perhaps you could demonstrate that you've spent the study time on actual research that would allow a better answer than mine? I'll gladly profit from your voluntary efforts.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And the papers IngoB referred to to support his assertion that teachers are more likely to be involved in sexual abuse show no such thing.
Well, one of the authors of these studies, Prof. Shakeshaft, seems to think otherwise. See here, which is a free copy of an article in Education Week. Now, it seems to me that there's almost certainly a problem here both of data gathering and of the definition what is then called "sexual abuse". One would also have to ask that about the numbers reported for priests. To make good a factor of over 100 though would take quite some doing...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Nope, current research has strengthened the link between sexual violence (both when the victims are children and when the victims are adults) and power/intimidation.
If this sexual violence we are talking about was purely about power / intimidation, then it would not differentiate between boys and girls. But it does, massively so. No other explanation has been advanced for the fact that boys were in 80-90% of the cases the targets, and not girls.
Oh, bullshit. Dozens of reasons were put forward, you just like the queerbait theory and you're going to hold on to it with every fiber of your homophobic body.
One in every six women have been sexually assaulted. Out of every 100 women who have been sexually assaulted, 6 will report the crime to the police/authorities. Taking the Census data, that means that out of the 149 millon women in the US, 24.8 million will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes and only 1.48 million will ever report the crime, leaving 23,320,000 women who just live with it every day of their lives.
Sometimes those women shoulder that burden with great strength and dignity and sometimes they spend the rest of their days with that demon whispering in their ear that they are worthless, useless, good-for-nothing sluts.
Now, these statistics are general, not to do with the priest abuse cases, but they illustrate the culture you've never had to deal with, Ingo, being a male-- women are taught not to talk about this. Ever. Because when we report the crime, we're treated like the criminal. Like whores. Like sluts who wanted it, who deserved it, who *made* the man lust after our flesh and commit violence against us.
I wonder, Ingo, about that demon whispering in the minds of any women wandering through here reading your attempts to queerwash the sex abuse scandals. I wonder if that demon's speaking in their minds using your voice.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think Rossweisse is saying that heterosexuals might be dissuaded from seeking ordinations because they want to marry, whereas homosexuals mostly don't want to marry anyway so they don't have that particular dissuasion from entering the priesthood. Therefore there is likely to be a lower proportion of heterosexuals among Catholic clergy than in the population as a whole. ...
The element that is being missed is that the Roman Catholic Church teaches (as I understand it) that a homosexual orientation is inherently wrong and even evil, whereas a heterosexual same is good, as long as it's pursued for purposes of procreation.
That would, I think, make it less difficult for homosexuals to accept the celibacy requirement of today's RCC. If your sexuality itself is a sin, then renounce it, and allow the element of untouchability inherent in the collar help you to stay away from temptation.
I also do think,as opaWim suggests, that male gays may be more inclined to the caring professions. This is anecdotal, of course, but of the people I know who take responsibility for aged relatives, the vast majority are women. The rest are gay men.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Jeff is beyond twisted. He's completely sprained.
Oh, bravo. Most excellently phrased.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In other words, Ingo's argument collapses at the first hurdle because it assumes that committing same-sex abuse of adolescents or children indicates that the abuser is gay.
See above. It's not me who has considerable explaining to do. If the priests were not "gay" in some loose definition of the term, then why did they target almost exclusively boys?
Really, I think you need to understand something - wanting to rape twelve year old boys is not part of being gay. Being homosexual means being attracted to members of your own sex: the desire to abuse adolescents is something entirely different, not part of being 'gay' in even a very loose term. This may be a delicate point to appreciate, especially if one insists on defining human sexuality in the rather crude mechanical terms that the Roman Curia seem to favour. Nevertheless, I assure you that it is so.
I simply do not find it creditable that most of the priestly abusers would have lived as gay men had they not been in the priesthood. If you want to know why the victims are in the majority of cases male, I would suggest that the obvious answer is that abuse tends to establish itself in cycles, so priests who were abused by older clergy when young, or at all-male seminaries, would be more likely to respond by themselves abusing younger men. I don't think has anything to do with what is normally thought of as 'sexual orientation', difficult to pin down though this concept might be.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Yes, is "Shakeshaft" a real name?
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PataLeBon
Shipmate
# 5452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse.:
I suspect that by refusing to let its priests marry ..., the Roman Catholic Church is guaranteeing that a high percentage of candidates will be men whose orientation is homosexual.
Well, it is apparently true in practice that a larger fraction of priests is homosexual than among men in general. Nevertheless, I think there are deeper issues here. Clearly, a priest is giving up sex anyway, so why would that be more attractive to gays?
Because a gay RC male who is dedicated to his faith will already be celibate and realize that will be his state for the rest of his life. A hetrosexual one will be thinking about the fact that they will be giving up a wife and possible children.
Simply put, a faithful gay man has less of his future to give up than a heterosexual man when all things are equal.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
In other words, Ingo's argument collapses at the first hurdle because it assumes that committing same-sex abuse of adolescents or children indicates that the abuser is gay.
See above. It's not me who has considerable explaining to do. If the priests were not "gay" in some loose definition of the term, then why did they target almost exclusively boys?
Ease of access. Pure and simple. Think about it. In the USA most people didn't think twice about letting their 11+ son go with the priest. Why not let them see someone that they wanted them to be just like? Why not let them be with a father figure? Their younger son? Too young to be left alone. Their daughter? Maybe some, but mostly not. Sexual abuse is a crime of opportunity. If they see the opportunity, they take it. So if they have more access to boys than girls, then there will be more abused boys than girls. It's like asking why thieves steal more from people whose houses are unlocked. Same thing.
--------------------
That's between you and your god. Oh, wait a minute. You are your god. That's a problem. - Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG1)
Posts: 1907 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
Please take the reasonable discussion of homosexuality to Dead Horses. This thread is for verbally abusing Bingo, not sanely discussing real issues.
Comet
Hellhost
I can't believe I just wrote that.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
Pretty surreal, isn't it, comet?
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Please take the reasonable discussion of homosexuality to Dead Horses. This thread is for verbally abusing Bingo, not sanely discussing real issues.
Comet
Hellhost
I can't believe I just wrote that.
If there are Simmies for hosting posts this surely must be a candidate.
[ 26. January 2010, 00:59: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
it did make me want to check my meds for a second there.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I posted my response on the topic of gay men and paedophilia here. .
I couldn't care less what IgnoB or the RCC think about homosexual men. They can believe we are all molesters for all I care. This is just another attempt at scapegoating and gay men are an easy target. It won't make the problem go away of course, but it will make it look like the RCC is doing something when it really isn't. That's just par for the course for an institution that is incapable of introspection and reform.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Now, these statistics are general, not to do with the priest abuse cases, but they illustrate the culture you've never had to deal with, Ingo, being a male-- women are taught not to talk about this. Ever. Because when we report the crime, we're treated like the criminal. Like whores. Like sluts who wanted it, who deserved it, who *made* the man lust after our flesh and commit violence against us.
This is an odd thing to post in a thread that's all about Bingo trying to figure out why priests molest boys more often than girls. I can't quite figure what to make of it.
Except to say that it isn't true. It might have been, 20-30 years ago or longer, but it isn't anymore.
quote:
I wonder, Ingo, about that demon whispering in the minds of any women wandering through here reading your attempts to queerwash the sex abuse scandals. I wonder if that demon's speaking in their minds using your voice.
Watching Bingo try to figure out why the church he submits to made a certain decision that he doesn't understand is somewhat painful.
(pssst Bingo - not being in the US, you might not know that a lot of priests who admitted to being homosexuals were openly participating in gay pride events in defiance of the church's official teachings.)
But you're just being melodramatic.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QJ
Shipmate
# 14873
|
Posted
sorry, i can't read all the posts but i wanted to relate some info from a public broadcasting show on child molestors. the program stated that pure homosexual men do not mess with kids. they said its pedofiles (sp?) and bisexual men. therefore gay men are not a treat to adopted children. they did show how men will marry a woman to get access to her kids which seemed horriffic. they interviewed men in prison who had that problem and did such things.
its all very sad and must have damaged the catholic church badly.
--------------------
QJ
Posts: 111 | From: PA | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
