• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Priest allegedly told rape victim: ‘This is what God’s love feels like’

evanescence said:
That argument sounds reasonable until one considers the cover ups. It's too wide spread to be ignored.
Click to expand...
Well, by that token, all groups can be demonized. All communists, all OWS, all TP. There have been so many corrupt democrats and republicans, by your logic, would should then judge all democrats and republicans. No, we cannot judge ALL for the actions of some. The concept must equally be applied to every; either all groups are demonized for the actions of some, or all aren't.
 
Wake said:
Well, by that token, all groups can be demonized. All communists, all OWS, all TP. There have been so many corrupt democrats and republicans, by your logic, would should then judge all democrats and republicans. No, we cannot judge ALL for the actions of some. The concept must equally be applied to every; either all groups are demonized for the actions of some, or all aren't.
Click to expand...

There does come a certain point when a group, no matter what it is, reaches a threshold of uselessness and corruption.
 
evanescence said:
There does come a certain point when a group, no matter what it is, reaches a threshold of uselessness and corruption.
Click to expand...
Huh. Which groups do you mean?
 
j-mac said:
"My leadership"???? Puhleeze. No where did I come out and say that the article that you posted was wrong, only suggested that you stick to reliable sourcing, because when you use sites that can so easily be refuted as the whacked out zealots determined to bring down the Catholic Church rather than help the victims, well then it just brings in the question of what exactly is accomplished by continually bashing what everyone knows has a huge problem within.

I mean, I used to be Catholic, no longer am, so My "leader" is not the Church, nor the Pope. So when you throw that out to cut, it has no effect partner....


Thanks.


j-mac
Click to expand...

My apologies....I misunderstood.
 
Peter Grimm said:
So, for example in 2005, there were 405,000 Catholic priests.

That means that roughly % 0.0007 of Catholic priests were accused of any incidents that year.

Stunning, I say. Just stunning. Why with numbers like that, I can truly understand the outrage.

Just for comparison:

Odds of you bowling a 300 game: 0.0008%

Odds you are fluent in Cherokee: 0.0006%

Odds you will be seriously injured by fireworks this year: 0.0005%

Odds you will die from slipping in the shower: 0.0004%

Odds you will be murdered: 0.0006%

Odds you will date a supermodel: 0.0001%



Cut the crap, people.
Click to expand...



I simply cannot understand why ANYONE defends this:

"The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[15]
The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[15]
Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[15]
Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[15]

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s."

Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and debase this post as well, attacking the source...but seriously, why?
 
Then the celibate Bishops setting church sex policy said, this proves God has a sense of humor.
 
tecoyah said:
I simply cannot understand why ANYONE defends this:

"The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.

The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[15]
The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[15]
Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[15]
Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[15]

Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s."

Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead and debase this post as well, attacking the source...but seriously, why?
Click to expand...


I'm not defending anything. Just pointing out the fact that the odds of a boy getting molested by a Catholic priest are only slightly better than that boy's chances of getting struck by lightning.

Tragic when it happens, but for you to make a big deal of it pretty much just illustrates a bias on your part.

We get it. You hate the Catholic Church. Like I said, it's a smear tactic. Yawn.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm not defending anything. Just pointing out the fact that the odds of a boy getting molested by a Catholic priest are only slightly better than that boy's chances of getting struck by lightning.

Tragic when it happens, but for you to make a big deal of it pretty much just illustrates a bias on your part.

We get it. You hate the Catholic Church. Like I said, it's a smear tactic. Yawn.
Click to expand...


OK....done
 
I don't know if I believe it.

Why is it always priests and boys, never girls? Why ALWAYS only homosexual rape of children?

Srly, what is the psychology?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Article can be found here (Priest allegedly told rape victim: ‘This is what God)

[/FONT]


To sum up my views on this, I would like to say that I would have no problem if something were to "accidentally" happen to these imbeciles. Like, if they were "accidentally" beaten till they were black and blue or "accidentally" sent to Gitmo and subject to psychological torture. If either of those things happened, I'd be hard-pressed to find a problem with it.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is not only will this person grow up and have issues with abuse, they will probably also grow up and have issues with the Catholic Church and possibly with religion. The priest is an obvious pervert, and he should be kicked out of the church... it's a disgrace.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Article can be found here (Priest allegedly told rape victim: ‘This is what God)

[/FONT]


To sum up my views on this, I would like to say that I would have no problem if something were to "accidentally" happen to these imbeciles. Like, if they were "accidentally" beaten till they were black and blue or "accidentally" sent to Gitmo and subject to psychological torture. If either of those things happened, I'd be hard-pressed to find a problem with it.
Click to expand...

To go back to the OP, if God's love feels like being ass-raped, it's no wonder there are atheists. These priests need to "feel God's love" in prison, IMO.
 
joko104 said:
I don't know if I believe it.

Why is it always priests and boys, never girls? Why ALWAYS only homosexual rape of children?

Srly, what is the psychology?
Click to expand...

There's nothing to believe. The sole intent of this thread is to bash the Catholic Church. It's a hate-thread, a forum for people to spew their hate at the Church.

This kind of stuff happens so rarely, but when it does it gets blown way out of proportion and the haters have a field day.

In this case there is nothing new to even report... they're just re-hashing an old case with some evocative details to stir up the hate further.

Here's an interesting story on a man who was struck by lightning twice: Man survives being hit by lightning TWICE in remarkable CCTV footage | Mail Online

Maybe we can spend the next couple hours bashing Zeus for that.
 
Last edited:
tecoyah said:
I simply cannot understand why ANYONE defends this
...
Go ahead and debase this post as well, attacking the source...but seriously, why?
Click to expand...
Nobody is defending pedophilia, rape or a cover up of either one. That's just how you willfully misinterpret people's posts.
 
evanescence said:
That argument sounds reasonable until one considers the cover ups. It's too wide spread to be ignored.
Click to expand...
There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world. Not even close to that many people were involved in the scandal. It makes zero sense to condemn an entire institution for negative behavior of some of its leaders. Let's say even 100 million people were responsible for the scandal. You end up blaming 900 million people for something they had no part of. Ridiculous.
 
tecoyah said:
I kid you not...if you decide to call me ignorant again, I may begin to get unpleasant...warnings or not.

I have posted multiple documents refuting your claim of Catholic Normalcy in this regard, you dispute the information as is your perogative. But I have yet to get personal, regardless of the continuous opportunity to do so.
Click to expand...
You haven't refuted anything. I just posted two articles that confirm my position. Your posts are a bastion of misinformation that tie pedophilia to celibacy and attempt to represent the Catholic Church as unique in terms of pedophilia. Your claims are just not true. It's simple and nothing you post will change that.

It's telling that your post focused on a single word in my post ("ignorance") and ignored the articles and arguments I posted. I'll take that as an understanding that you're wrong and a deflection in order to avoid admitting it.

If your actions are the Catholic Way...you have created a beautiful context to play on.
Click to expand...
I'm not Catholic. I just like the truth regardless of whether or not I like the Church.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world. Not even close to that many people were involved in the scandal. It makes zero sense to condemn an entire institution for negative behavior of some of its leaders. Let's say even 100 million people were responsible for the scandal. You end up blaming 900 million people for something they had no part of. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But isn't it reasonable to condemn the structure and leadership of the institution, and the elements of the institution that lead to this? The secrecy, greed, and power grabbing by the church certainly contributed to this problem. The pope himself issued the order to cover up instances of priests raping children. The prohibition against priests engaging in consensual adult sex could assuredly have contributed.

It's absurd to hold your Catholic neighbor responsible. It is correct to hold Catholic structure and dogma responsible.
 
Paschendale said:
But isn't it reasonable to condemn the structure and leadership of the institution, and the elements of the institution that lead to this? The secrecy, greed, and power grabbing by the church certainly contributed to this problem. The pope himself issued the order to cover up instances of priests raping children. The prohibition against priests engaging in consensual adult sex could assuredly have contributed.

It's absurd to hold your Catholic neighbor responsible. It is correct to hold Catholic structure and dogma responsible.
Click to expand...
Oh, I completely agree that condemning the structure and leadership of the institution is reasonable and in fact, necessary. The Catholic Church has a very top-down order to things and although it's decreased somewhat over time, it also enforces an attitude that lay people need to shut up and listen to the clergy. Those aspects of the Church need to be altered because they undoubtedly contributed to the cover up and probably made a lot of pedophiles feel safe abusing children - especially back in the day. (Although, this is also a big problem outside of the church as a lot of parents tell their kids to always "mind their teachers" and "do what the adults say".)

My point was that it is absurd to hold regular Catholics responsible (as you said) and also to just write off the entire Church because some/many of its leaders failed to act. Although I disagree with a lot of what the Church does in general, it has also done a lot of good in the world so I'm not going to get on board with completely condemning it as an organization. I think it's due for another revamping and after Benedict dies, I hope that happens since I'm pretty sure he was meant to be a pre-transitional Pope who has lived past his expected 'reign'.
 
Paschendale said:
But isn't it reasonable to condemn the structure and leadership of the institution, and the elements of the institution that lead to this? The secrecy, greed, and power grabbing by the church certainly contributed to this problem. The pope himself issued the order to cover up instances of priests raping children. The prohibition against priests engaging in consensual adult sex could assuredly have contributed.

It's absurd to hold your Catholic neighbor responsible. It is correct to hold Catholic structure and dogma responsible.
Click to expand...

Still no one has been able to show any proof of any this.
 
Paschendale said:
The prohibition against priests engaging in consensual adult sex could assuredly have contributed.
Click to expand...
I didn't see this part last time. The fact that married men are just as like to be pedophiles as celibate men blows this theory out of the water. There's also the fact that there isn't any substantial scientific proof of a link between celibacy and pedophilia.
 
Why is it so hard to understand that a bunch of perverts used the catholic church as a means to attack children. That is the bottom line. It is NOT a reflection on catholics, their beliefs, of the church or religion as a whole.

Attack the offenders.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
There are over 1 billion Catholics in the world. Not even close to that many people were involved in the scandal. It makes zero sense to condemn an entire institution for negative behavior of some of its leaders. Let's say even 100 million people were responsible for the scandal. You end up blaming 900 million people for something they had no part of. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood. No one is blaming every individual in the catholic church. It's the organization itself that is corrupt.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I didn't see this part last time. The fact that married men are just as like to be pedophiles as celibate men blows this theory out of the water. There's also the fact that there isn't any substantial scientific proof of a link between celibacy and pedophilia.
Click to expand...

I know. I was suggesting that perhaps the church wouldn't be as useful a tool for attracting pedophiles if the ban were not in place. If most priests were married, detecting odd behavior that could be indicative of abusive activities might be easier. I was looking at it not at a person by person basis, but rather in terms of the gathering of such people in one place. Individual pedophiles may not be affected, but the churches might become safer places for kids.

I realize that wasn't especially clear from my previous post.
 
TheNextEra said:
Well, maybe some of the catholic churches shouldn't have fought so hard for the child molesters in their ranks and people wouldn't be turned off so much by them. Ever think of that sport?
Click to expand...

There seems to be more than one group who supports child molesters. University students, for example.
 
evanescence said:
You've misunderstood. No one is blaming every individual in the catholic church. It's the organization itself that is corrupt.
Click to expand...
Actually, someone was doing that earlier, but he appears to have been scared off. If you're not doing that, then we've got no beef.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom