goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: renocat on August 19, 2018, 08:21:03 PM
-
God haters and Jesus bashers are going to have a field day with all of the lastest sexual abuse news I the Catholic Church.
Sad.
A few jerks is destroying the respect long
In the entire realm of Christianity.
How can it be fixed?
-
We should pay priests more.
-
We should pay priests more.
Wouldn't help, they would just give it to the Vatican or spent it on wine.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Actually, priests were allowed to marry. Several centuries ago, a pope changed at that.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Especially since Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s wife and had his kid.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Especially since Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s wife and had his kid.
What, Mary Mother of God, wouldn't be humping her son too! :surprised:
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Especially since Mary Magdalene was Jesus’s wife and had his kid.
What, Mary Mother of God, wouldn't be humping her son too! :surprised:
Not that Mary.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Is there any chance of this though? Serious non-pit question.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Is there any chance of this though? Serious non-pit question.
It’s unlikely. The Church is resistant to radical change, and that would be radical. But it is at least a serious topic of discussion among Catholics. The other possible safeguard is ordaining women to the priesthood (I think less likely) or at least elevating them to higher levels of authority (not sure how the Church could give a non-priest authority over a priest, however).
These horrible crimes are largely rooted in the sad fact that the priesthood has for a very long time been a refuge of sorts for some deeply troubled, closeted homosexuals. The vast vast majority of the molestations are homosexual in nature. Allowing priests to marry eliminates that draw, not to mention makes the priesthood a more appealing vocation for more people.
Celibacy of the priesthood is one of the Catholic traditions I have the hardest time grappling with.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Is there any chance of this though? Serious non-pit question.
It’s unlikely. The Church is resistant to radical change, and that would be radical. But it is at least a serious topic of discussion among Catholics. The other possible safeguard is ordaining women to the priesthood (I think less likely) or at least elevating them to higher levels of authority (not sure how the Church could give a non-priest authority over a priest, however).
These horrible crimes are largely rooted in the sad fact that the priesthood has for a very long time been a refuge of sorts for some deeply troubled, closeted homosexuals. The vast vast majority of the molestations are homosexual in nature. Allowing priests to marry eliminates that draw, not to mention makes the priesthood a more appealing vocation for more people.
Celibacy of the priesthood is one of the Catholic traditions I have the hardest time grappling with.
I've heard the word reformation thrown around since the grand jury report came out so it may not be as unlikely as you think.
-
Allowing priests to marry would be a great start. There is no biblical basis for the current practice.
Is there any chance of this though? Serious non-pit question.
It’s unlikely. The Church is resistant to radical change, and that would be radical. But it is at least a serious topic of discussion among Catholics. The other possible safeguard is ordaining women to the priesthood (I think less likely) or at least elevating them to higher levels of authority (not sure how the Church could give a non-priest authority over a priest, however).
These horrible crimes are largely rooted in the sad fact that the priesthood has for a very long time been a refuge of sorts for some deeply troubled, closeted homosexuals. The vast vast majority of the molestations are homosexual in nature. Allowing priests to marry eliminates that draw, not to mention makes the priesthood a more appealing vocation for more people.
Celibacy of the priesthood is one of the Catholic traditions I have the hardest time grappling with.
My kids go to these schools so I hope there is a new plan. Good post btw kazz.
-
These horrible crimes are largely rooted in the sad fact that the priesthood has for a very long time been a refuge of sorts for some deeply troubled, closeted homosexuals. The vast vast majority of the molestations are homosexual in nature. Allowing priests to marry eliminates that draw, not to mention makes the priesthood a more appealing vocation for more people.
Low Catholic IQ here (and low pedo IQ), but is it not more of an access issue than a homosexual pedophilic preference? Is there a young girl equivalent to an altar boy in the Catholic Church that a priest would have similar access to?
-
Churches are allowed to have alter girls. Also, the latest Pennsylvania mess did involve girls. I don’t think allowing priests to marry would remove pedophiles from the priesthood but it would drastically increase the available pool of priests which would help.
Even though the stuff in Pennsylvania apparently involved some pretty terrible child abuse, by far the worst aspect was that it was coordinated among several clergy and systematically carried out & covered up. That depravity goes a lot deeper.
-
If your church doesn’t have any altar girls.... :dubious:
-
I think it's pretty clear that the laws we have against people who cover this sort of thing up and allow it to continue are either not strong enough or we just aren't doing a good enough job of prosecuting them.
-
I'm not sure how anyone could continue to participate in and contribute money to an organization that is so seemingly non-caring about child abuse. This is a culture problem, just like Baylor and Penn state, every single person involved must be outted and punished.
-
Yeah, there are other churches that don't have this problem institutionally embedded in them. Sending this church money makes you a small part of the problem.
-
Sadly other churches are not immune from evil leaders, but I've explained above why the Catholic Church has a particular problem and how to best fix it. As for Catholics boycotting the Church, I'm sure some will. But I wouldn't judge too harshly the vast majority who choose to stay. Protestants and non-religious tend to view churches somewhat more interchangeably. To Catholics, the Catholic Church is the one true church. That's why Catholics don't call it the Catholic Church. They call it "the Church." They believe that the Church has direct lineage to Jesus Christ and Peter, whom they identify as the first pope. I do hope they'll attempt to reform the priesthood, but for all the talk of Pope Francis being a "reformer," he is not the pope you want for this job.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse)
-
God should fix it.
-
Sadly other churches are not immune from evil leaders, but I've explained above why the Catholic Church has a particular problem and how to best fix it. As for Catholics boycotting the Church, I'm sure some will. But I wouldn't judge too harshly the vast majority who choose to stay. Protestants and non-religious tend to view churches somewhat more interchangeably. To Catholics, the Catholic Church is the one true church. That's why Catholics don't call it the Catholic Church. They call it "the Church." They believe that the Church has direct lineage to Jesus Christ and Peter, whom they identify as the first pope. I do hope they'll attempt to reform the priesthood, but for all the talk of Pope Francis being a "reformer," he is not the pope you want for this job.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse)
And interestingly enough, Peter was married...
And yeah, this thing is disgusting.
-
I wonder if kdub would be excusing all of this if American imam's were raping kids right and left?
-
Sadly other churches are not immune from evil leaders, but I've explained above why the Catholic Church has a particular problem and how to best fix it. As for Catholics boycotting the Church, I'm sure some will. But I wouldn't judge too harshly the vast majority who choose to stay. Protestants and non-religious tend to view churches somewhat more interchangeably. To Catholics, the Catholic Church is the one true church. That's why Catholics don't call it the Catholic Church. They call it "the Church." They believe that the Church has direct lineage to Jesus Christ and Peter, whom they identify as the first pope. I do hope they'll attempt to reform the priesthood, but for all the talk of Pope Francis being a "reformer," he is not the pope you want for this job.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse (https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/pope-francis-blind-spot-sexual-abuse)
Everyone calls their church “church”
I don’t say “I went to the Methodist Church last Sunday”
-
Everyone refers to church as church. But when referring to your church as a distinct entity, you probably call it the Methodist Church. For Catholics it’s just The Church. Kind of like The Ohio State University.
-
canco
-
I wonder if kdub would be excusing all of this if American imam's were raping kids right and left?
Excusing it? I think it's horrific . These disgusting animals deserve the death penalty, which makes the Pope's recent criticism of capital punishment a tad ironic. I like the Catholic Church and I know some very fine Catholics, and I'd like Pope Francis to focus his energies on getting his rough ridin' house in order.
-
I'm not sure how anyone could continue to participate in and contribute money to an organization that is so seemingly non-caring about child abuse. This is a culture problem, just like Baylor and Penn state, every single person involved must be outted and punished.
Interesting take from a devout Democrat
-
I wonder if kdub would be excusing all of this if American imam's were raping kids right and left?
Excusing it? I think it's horrific . These disgusting animals deserve the death penalty, which makes the Pope's recent criticism of capital punishment a tad ironic. I like the Catholic Church and I know some very fine Catholics, and I'd like Pope Francis to focus his energies on getting his rough ridin' house in order.
Your blamed homosexuals and hand waved the systemic cover ups as "well to them it's the true religion so oh well!"
-
Everyone refers to church as church. But when referring to your church as a distinct entity, you probably call it the Methodist Church. For Catholics it’s just The Church. Kind of like The Ohio State University.
Actually, its a lot like Ohio State University
-
I wonder if kdub would be excusing all of this if American imam's were raping kids right and left?
Excusing it? I think it's horrific . These disgusting animals deserve the death penalty, which makes the Pope's recent criticism of capital punishment a tad ironic. I like the Catholic Church and I know some very fine Catholics, and I'd like Pope Francis to focus his energies on getting his rough ridin' house in order.
Your blamed homosexuals and hand waved the systemic cover ups as "well to them it's the true religion so oh well!"
I don’t think it’s fair to blame all Catholics for the coverup simply because they continue to attend Mass and tithe. 99.999999% of Catholics don’t have anything to do with this scandal and are probably angry and ashamed about it.
-
If it was discovered that 300 Wal-Mart greeters had somehow molested 1000 children, do you think people would boycott Wal-Mart?
-
Oh come on, just because Wal-Mart covered up and transfered pedophiles all over the country instead of getting the legal system involved doesn't mean there is anything wrong with Wal-Mart shoppers continuing to support them financially!
-
Good comparison guys.
-
Wal-Mart wishes it was as profitable.
-
I think the point is time and time again they get caught and they always have kept these freaks in the fold, quietly moved them around.
-
Yeah, the church would have a lot less pedophile priests if they would just work with law enforcement and make sure they get convictions, rather than working with the pedophiles to make sure they stay employed and don't get caught.
-
I wonder if kdub would be excusing all of this if American imam's were raping kids right and left?
Excusing it? I think it's horrific . These disgusting animals deserve the death penalty, which makes the Pope's recent criticism of capital punishment a tad ironic. I like the Catholic Church and I know some very fine Catholics, and I'd like Pope Francis to focus his energies on getting his rough ridin' house in order.
Your blamed homosexuals and hand waved the systemic cover ups as "well to them it's the true religion so oh well!"
I don’t think it’s fair to blame all Catholics for the coverup simply because they continue to attend Mass and tithe. 99.999999% of Catholics don’t have anything to do with this scandal and are probably angry and ashamed about it.
Yes, that would be identical to judging a person by the color of his skin instead of his character which is abhorrent bad person behavior.
-
Yeah, the church would have a lot less pedophile priests if they would just work with law enforcement and make sure they get convictions, rather than working with the pedophiles to make sure they stay employed and don't get caught.
So weird that some people in this thread can't grasp this concept. Easier to blame gays I guess.
-
Xpost pro wrestling thread
https://twitter.com/realkevinnash/status/1031629898639659008?s=21
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
You keep saying gay when you mean pedophile
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
You keep saying gay when you mean pedophile
The vast majority of victims - over 80% by most estimates - are male/male. It is beyond naive to pretend there is not a homosexual element to this. I think denying the obvious in the name of political correctness does a disservice to the victims.
The best excuse I’ve heard is “well, sure most of the victims are male, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the the abuser is gay.” Hey, what heterosexual dude hasn’t wanted to fondle a 12 year old boy? :dunno:
-
Everyone can find statistics that tell the story they want to tell:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crimes-violence/201005/priest-abuse-male-compared-female-victimization-impact%3Famp
In contrast to the low estimate of victimized females by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a random survey of over 7,000 active Catholics in the U.S. and Canada found a closer ratio, that 1.7 percent of the females and 3.3 percent of the males had been sexually abused in childhood by a priest. In any case, a significant number of girls have been victimized by priests. Such sexual relationships with female parishioners reinforce a traditional male power dynamic.
Regardless, a survey showing that ~1/40 active Catholics were sexually abused is horrifying. The Church is a disgusting organization.
-
Everyone can find statistics that tell the story they want to tell:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/crimes-violence/201005/priest-abuse-male-compared-female-victimization-impact%3Famp
In contrast to the low estimate of victimized females by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, a random survey of over 7,000 active Catholics in the U.S. and Canada found a closer ratio, that 1.7 percent of the females and 3.3 percent of the males had been sexually abused in childhood by a priest. In any case, a significant number of girls have been victimized by priests. Such sexual relationships with female parishioners reinforce a traditional male power dynamic.
Regardless, a survey showing that ~1/40 active Catholics were sexually abused is horrifying. The Church is a disgusting organization.
Gays make up about 2% of the population. Even using your most generous stats, at least 66% of molestations are male/male. You don’t recognize the disparity there?
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
You keep saying gay when you mean pedophile
The vast majority of victims - over 80% by most estimates - are male/male. It is beyond naive to pretend there is not a homosexual element to this. I think denying the obvious in the name of political correctness does a disservice to the victims.
The best excuse I’ve heard is “well, sure most of the victims are male, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the the abuser is gay.” Hey, what heterosexual dude hasn’t wanted to fondle a 12 year old boy? :dunno:
An adult male rough ridin' a boy is no more a homosexual act than an adult male rough ridin' a girl is a heterosexual act. You're just showing your agenda trying to link the two.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Or maybe this is your way of admitting you want to fondle a 12 yr old girl? You're heterosexual afterall right?
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
You keep saying gay when you mean pedophile
The vast majority of victims - over 80% by most estimates - are male/male. It is beyond naive to pretend there is not a homosexual element to this. I think denying the obvious in the name of political correctness does a disservice to the victims.
The best excuse I’ve heard is “well, sure most of the victims are male, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the the abuser is gay.” Hey, what heterosexual dude hasn’t wanted to fondle a 12 year old boy? :dunno:
An adult male rough ridin' a boy is no more a homosexual act than an adult male rough ridin' a girl is a heterosexual act. You're just showing your agenda trying to link the two.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html
Or maybe this is your way of admitting you want to fondle a 12 yr old girl? You're heterosexual afterall right?
:lol: See? You just made exactly the absurd argument I was talking about! “Durrr, just because a guy molests a boy doesn’t make it homosexual! I repeat, just because the vast majority of molestations in the Church are male/male, that has nothing to do with homosexuality!” You go ahead and keep making that argument. And I freely admit you’ll find politically correct literature to support your politically correct argument. If denying reality makes you feel better, deny away.
And not that it matters because you’ll just find another excuse anyway, but the majority of these alleged molestations involved post-pubescent victims that would technically constitute pedophilia anyway.
-
Are you saying homosexuals are more apt to sexually abuse children?
-
You can blame the gay priests and the church that protects them. You can blame both.
You keep saying gay when you mean pedophile
The vast majority of victims - over 80% by most estimates - are male/male. It is beyond naive to pretend there is not a homosexual element to this. I think denying the obvious in the name of political correctness does a disservice to the victims.
I don’t understand your point at all. Are you suggesting that most of these cases could be avoided by conversion therapy? Or that the church should investigate sexual preferences and deny gay priests admission?
-
So I’m supposed to believe that Priests that molest boys are not necessarily gay?
-
Are you saying homosexuals are more apt to sexually abuse children?
Nope. That does not at all follow from what I’m saying.
-
Are you saying homosexuals are more apt to sexually abuse children?
Nope. That does not at all follow from what I’m saying.
Ok good, I was hoping you weren’t going there.
-
Just deplorable and sad. Here I was hoping they were turning the corner with getting Francis in there, and then set back. I hope he can do the right thing and just clean house all here in the US. Also get these monsters behind bars where they belong.
-
This isn't about homosexuality.
It's about pedophiles, and the Catholic church protecting devients and allowing them to be practicing flergy. And worse elevating some bishops to hierarchy.
In 2002 there was a similar scandal. For.this occur again is sickening.
I think marriage would be a good step forward because light will be cast on evil.
-
So I’m supposed to believe that Priests that molest boys are not necessarily gay?
I lost all interest in this thread when I read that. Absurd and idiotic. rough ridin' libtards
-
How pointing out that an overwhelming number of the crimes against humanity in the church are committed by homosexual pedophiles could somehow be controversial is insane.
Nobody is even arguing that the church should be held accountable.
-
Crimes are horrible and those associated with them should be brought to justice. It's frustrating that that obvious point even needs to be said.
However, I find it incredibly hard to believe that 1 in 40 catholics were molested by a priest. That would mean that 1.75 million people were molested in the US alone. Which I'm not buying.
The pedophilia/gay argument is pretty weird too. Regardless of the abuser's sexual orientation, they should be brought to justice. The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
-
Crimes are horrible and those associated with them should be brought to justice. It's frustrating that that obvious point even needs to be said.
However, I find it incredibly hard to believe that 1 in 40 catholics were molested by a priest. That would mean that 1.75 million people were molested in the US alone.
It was hard to believe in 2002. It's not that hard to believe now.
-
The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
If by “better job” you mean “start doing anything at all” and “stop actively protecting them from prosecution or losing their job” then yes. If this was any other organization, there would be hordes calling for it to be shut down entirely. This makes Baylor athletics look tame.
-
The catholic church (and many other churches) are historically successful grifts. like if peter had facebook he'd be touting his ability to make his own hours and work from home and he'd love to tell you how to do the same. the sexual assault stuff is absolutely horrifying but the entire thing should be disbanded even if it wasn't happening. also taxed.
-
The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
If by “better job” you mean “start doing anything at all” and “stop actively protecting them from prosecution or losing their job” then yes. If this was any other organization, there would be hordes calling for it to be shut down entirely. This makes Baylor athletics look tame.
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
-
The catholic church (and many other churches) are historically successful grifts. like if peter had facebook he'd be touting his ability to make his own hours and work from home and he'd love to tell you how to do the same. the sexual assault stuff is absolutely horrifying but the entire thing should be disbanded even if it wasn't happening. also taxed.
Too soon to start politicizing.
-
Anyone politician that actively sought to tax the church would have to go into witness protection.
-
Pretty sure taxing churches would be deemed unconstitutional anyway.
-
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
Yeah, this is the obvious answer. FTR, if something similar happened at Walmart or any private business I wouldn't be calling for them to shut down, but I would be calling for more oversight and a pretty significant overhaul of leadership. That said, I would encourage any religious person to sincerely consider whether their denomination is actually exemplifying the beliefs they claim. Catholics should be no exception to that.
-
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
Agreed. Like I said a few posts back, the Wal-Mart comparison is absurd, but thanks for taking the time to explain the obvious.
The pedophilia/gay argument is pretty weird too. Regardless of the abuser's sexual orientation, they should be brought to justice. The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
The Church should also be focused on better reporting and enforcement measures, but doing a better job of barring the bad apples from the priesthood in the first place is just as important. To that end, while the undeniable homosexual element to the abuse makes people very uncomfortable from a PC standpoint, it is relevant when considering how to best prevent future abuse.
Some gays such as Andrew Sullivan acknowledge the link but believe that it's the closeted, sexually repressed, and self-hating nature (his words) of gays who choose to enter the priesthood that makes them particularly prone to being abusers. So is the solution to allow priests to marry, thus making the Church a less enticing draw for that sort of person? Seems like a good idea to me for all sorts of reasons - not just this. Or maybe the solution is to allow gay priests to serve openly (let's get real - that's not gonna happen). Or maybe be more stringent in barring homosexuals from entering the priesthood (hard to see how that's practical, or consistent with the idea that priests are supposed to be celibate anyway).
It's a difficult but important issue for the Church (and really everyone). What we don't need is the typical liberal politically correct denial of the obvious and efforts to shut down any discussion on the topic by calling people bigots, etc.
-
The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
If by “better job” you mean “start doing anything at all” and “stop actively protecting them from prosecution or losing their job” then yes. If this was any other organization, there would be hordes calling for it to be shut down entirely. This makes Baylor athletics look tame.
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
That approach seems to have been a dismal failure that has destroyed hundreds of lives.
-
Catholics don't represent Christianity. They don't believe what's in the Bible. It's not surprising the Catholic church is continually involved in such evil.
Sincerely,
Reformed Baptist
-
The Church should do a better job of vetting (and bringing to justice) these people to ensure that the priesthood isn't being co-opted by these people for sexual purposes.
If by “better job” you mean “start doing anything at all” and “stop actively protecting them from prosecution or losing their job” then yes. If this was any other organization, there would be hordes calling for it to be shut down entirely. This makes Baylor athletics look tame.
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
That approach seems to have been a dismal failure that has destroyed hundreds of lives.
millions of lives, actually
-
Yeah I realized I was way low
-
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
That approach seems to have been a dismal failure that has destroyed hundreds of lives.
What approach are you talking about? The one where people seek justice and change?
If people within an institution do horrible things, is the only proper response to completely abandon the institution? That would leave us with very few institutions.
-
The only way the catholic church is ever going to change is if a significant number of people completely abandon them. Maybe a proper response would be to attend, but give your tithe to some charity so your money doesn't go toward the rape of children until the church makes meaningful changes to its structure.
-
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
That approach seems to have been a dismal failure that has destroyed hundreds of lives.
What approach are you talking about? The one where people seek justice and change?
If people within an institution do horrible things, is the only proper response to completely abandon the institution? That would leave us with very few institutions.
The approach where the church begs for forgiveness, says they are ashamed and to pray for the victims while saying its wrong to abandon the church - but then changes zero and everyone forgets/moves on. While at the same time they lobby for shortened SOL's so they won't have to pay the people who were raped at age 10.
That approach is the one that seems to have failed in my non-expert opinion.
-
Well it's not "any other organization" and you know that. The church isn't Walmart. It's not some fungible institution where people can decide to go elsewhere where the policies are better or the prices are lower. I would expect people who practice Catholicism out of habit or convenience or whatever to leave, but if you truly believe in the tenets of Catholicism, you can't really just decide to join a non-denominational church or something. I think for those people, the proper response is to seek justice and advocate change within the Church structure to prevent this type of thing happening in the future.
That approach seems to have been a dismal failure that has destroyed hundreds of lives.
What approach are you talking about? The one where people seek justice and change?
If people within an institution do horrible things, is the only proper response to completely abandon the institution? That would leave us with very few institutions.
The approach where the church begs for forgiveness, says they are ashamed and to pray for the victims while saying its wrong to abandon the church - but then changes zero and everyone forgets/moves on. While at the same time they lobby for shortened SOL's so they won't have to pay the people who were raped at age 10.
That approach is the one that seems to have failed in my non-expert opinion.
Yeah, no crap.
Nobody in this thread is saying that the church should provide lip-service and change nothing.
-
No one ever says that yet that's exactly what they have done. It's going to happen again in 8-10 years in another state. Probably NY or VA. Maybe NJ
-
No one ever says that yet that's exactly what they have done. It's going to happen again in 8-10 years in another state. Probably NY or VA. Maybe NJ
I agree that Church has done an inadequate job of addressing this, and I hope they do a better job in the future, and believe they can. Hopefully punishments laid out by the justice system can help punish, disincentivize and prevent the bad behavior.
-
Seems reasonable that the catholic doctrine itself is to blame for attracting deviants to the priesthood. Forbid sexual activity not meant for procreation with a spouse under threat of eternal damnation, create a celibate position of religious authority, and any deviant true believer might see the priesthood as their best path to salvation.
-
Seems reasonable that the catholic doctrine itself is to blame for attracting deviants to the priesthood. Forbid sexual activity not meant for procreation with a spouse under threat of eternal damnation, create a celibate position of religious authority, and any deviant true believer might see the priesthood as their best path to salvation.
I think the priesthood naturally attracts some deviants, just like a number of other professions attract deviants.
I really don't follow your logical progression of how (1) condemning sexual promiscuity (2) leads to sexual deviants joining the priesthood.
-
The Church should also be focused on better reporting and enforcement measures, but doing a better job of barring the bad apples from the priesthood in the first place is just as important. To that end, while the undeniable homosexual element to the abuse makes people very uncomfortable from a PC standpoint, it is relevant when considering how to best prevent future abuse.
Some gays such as Andrew Sullivan acknowledge the link but believe that it's the closeted, sexually repressed, and self-hating nature (his words) of gays who choose to enter the priesthood that makes them particularly prone to being abusers. So is the solution to allow priests to marry, thus making the Church a less enticing draw for that sort of person? Seems like a good idea to me for all sorts of reasons - not just this. Or maybe the solution is to allow gay priests to serve openly (let's get real - that's not gonna happen). Or maybe be more stringent in barring homosexuals from entering the priesthood (hard to see how that's practical, or consistent with the idea that priests are supposed to be celibate anyway).
It's a difficult but important issue for the Church (and really everyone). What we don't need is the typical liberal politically correct denial of the obvious and efforts to shut down any discussion on the topic by calling people bigots, etc.
Can you just explain what you mean by "the undeniable homosexual element"?
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
-
Seems reasonable that the catholic doctrine itself is to blame for attracting deviants to the priesthood. Forbid sexual activity not meant for procreation with a spouse under threat of eternal damnation, create a celibate position of religious authority, and any deviant true believer might see the priesthood as their best path to salvation.
I think the priesthood naturally attracts some deviants, just like a number of other professions attract deviants.
I really don't follow your logical progression of how (1) condemning sexual promiscuity (2) leads to sexual deviants joining the priesthood.
(1) it is not merely condemning sexual promiscuity. It is condemning any non-spousal sex, any birth control, any sodomy, etc. (2) if you really believe all of that crap, like actually think you are damned to eternal hell for it, and you naturally have any homosexual or pedophilic attractions, you probably would want to remain celibate. The priesthood would seem like a good option for someone who (a) truly believes the teachings of the church (b) wants to remain celibate for fear of eternal suffering.
This doesn’t even touch the strong correlation of those who are abused becoming abusers. What better profession than the one your abuser had and was protected in?
-
Seems reasonable that the catholic doctrine itself is to blame for attracting deviants to the priesthood. Forbid sexual activity not meant for procreation with a spouse under threat of eternal damnation, create a celibate position of religious authority, and any deviant true believer might see the priesthood as their best path to salvation.
I think the priesthood naturally attracts some deviants, just like a number of other professions attract deviants.
I really don't follow your logical progression of how (1) condemning sexual promiscuity (2) leads to sexual deviants joining the priesthood.
(1) it is not merely condemning sexual promiscuity. It is condemning any non-spousal sex, any birth control, any sodomy, etc. (2) if you really believe all of that crap, like actually think you are damned to eternal hell for it, and you naturally have any homosexual or pedophilic attractions, you probably would want to remain celibate. The priesthood would seem like a good option for someone who (a) truly believes the teachings of the church (b) wants to remain celibate for fear of eternal suffering.
Err, i agree with everything you said. I still don't follow. Deviants who have the self-awareness to know what they're doing is wrong are just as capable as remaining celibate as lay people as they are as clergy. That's a clunky sentence.
If I'm a self-conscious sexual deviant and I know I shouldn't be abusing minors (or acting-out sexually in other ways), I don't see why being a priest (with bad compulsions) is a more attractive option than just living like an otherwise regular guy (with bad compulsions).
I think the more likely explanation is the (understandable) perception that the priesthood is a pretty good profession for predators based on the access to minors, inherent authority/trust between priests and parishes, and institutional protection priests have been afforded.
-
Is "grift" "grifter" the libtard word of the month?
-
Aren't the libtards pushing to normalize pedophilia anyways??? The Catholics just need to hang on for a few years until its officially homophobic to condemn pedophilia.
-
No one ever says that yet that's exactly what they have done. It's going to happen again in 8-10 years in another state. Probably NY or VA. Maybe NJ
I agree that Church has done an inadequate job of addressing this, and I hope they do a better job in the future, and believe they can. Hopefully punishments laid out by the justice system can help punish, disincentivize and prevent the bad behavior.
So sit back and let the courts imprison these guys (now that the church’s Elaborate cover up and diversion plan has failed to completely protect serial predators). I am unconvinced that the criminal justice system can change this pattern bevause the entire pattern is designed to protect the guilty from it.
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
What is this insistence on refusing to include the word "gay" or "homosexual" with the word "pedophile" when describing a man sexually abuses a boy?
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
What is this insistence on refusing to include the word "gay" or "homosexual" with the word "pedophile" when describing a man sexually abuses a boy?
What insistence? I don't have any apprehension about identifying "heterosexual pedophilia" and "homosexual pedophilia" as such, although i don't find the the distinction particularly important. I think it's clear that the victims' status as minors is a more relevant trait than their sex.
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
Um - they’re don’t that, too. And again, pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent victims, so your statement above is an inherent contradiction.
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
Um - they’re don’t that, too. And again, pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent victims, so your statement above is an inherent contradiction.
I know they're doing that. But priests hitting up a gay club or having consensual sex in the seminary isn't harming children.
And the semantics re. "pedophilia" isn't helpful or honest. When the victims are 12-14, it's clearly an infatuation with something other than "adults," regardless of whether not it fits the clinical definition of "pedophilia."
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
Um - they’re don’t that, too. And again, pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent victims, so your statement above is an inherent contradiction.
I know they're doing that. But priests hitting up a gay club or having consensual sex in the seminary isn't harming children.
And the semantics re. "pedophilia" isn't helpful or honest. When the victims are 12-14, it's clearly an infatuation with something other than "adults," regardless of whether not it fits the clinical definition of "pedophilia."
That doesn’t seem like semantics to me. Semantics would be refusing to acknowledge that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is by definition homosexual.
-
So in a devil's three way the men are both homosexuals and heterosexuals? #schrodinger's3way
-
As long as the distraction is successful...
-
It's very important for conservatives to link homosexuals and child molesters.
-
It's very important for conservatives to link homosexuals and child molesters.
Ding ding ding
-
It's very important for conservatives to link homosexuals and child molesters.
It’s also a useful diversion here
-
lol wut?
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
Um - they’re don’t that, too. And again, pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent victims, so your statement above is an inherent contradiction.
I know they're doing that. But priests hitting up a gay club or having consensual sex in the seminary isn't harming children.
And the semantics re. "pedophilia" isn't helpful or honest. When the victims are 12-14, it's clearly an infatuation with something other than "adults," regardless of whether not it fits the clinical definition of "pedophilia."
Semantics would be refusing to acknowledge that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is by definition homosexual.
Show me where I said otherwise.
And my point is that if you take issue with me labeling them "pedophiles," i'm happy to concede that and refer to them by the more palatable term "child molesters" or "sexual abusers of minors," or any other term that notes that taboo nature of the engagement. The point is that these people are engaging in sexual crimes against minors.
It's crazy to me that you could see an adult male inappropriately touching a minor male and think the issue is as superficial as the adult being gay, rather than some deeper proclivity that attracts him to 14 year olds.
If a male teacher inappropriately touches his 13 year old female student, nobody thinks "these damn hetero teachers..." They think "hm...people who are sexually attracted to junior high students shouldn't be junior high teachers."
-
i don't want to carefully read this thread and i know some of you have basically said the same, but i'd like to make it more explicit - the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.
i don't believe there is any connection to religion other than that. if, in the future, the catholic church makes it harder either access victims or escape punishment, pedophiles in the future will flock into other professions (pediatrics, wrestling coach, dunno).
-
He's saying most of the victims are post-pubescent boys so it's a gay problem and not a pedophile problem per se. I've never understood it. If it was a gay problem, these guys could go a few towns over and hit up grindr.
That said, a separate issue is that there's apparently a fair amount of gay sex that occurs in seminaries. However, I see that as more of a Church issue than one requiring the attention of secular society.
Um - they’re don’t that, too. And again, pedophilia by definition involves pre-pubescent victims, so your statement above is an inherent contradiction.
I know they're doing that. But priests hitting up a gay club or having consensual sex in the seminary isn't harming children.
And the semantics re. "pedophilia" isn't helpful or honest. When the victims are 12-14, it's clearly an infatuation with something other than "adults," regardless of whether not it fits the clinical definition of "pedophilia."
Semantics would be refusing to acknowledge that sexual activity between two people of the same sex is by definition homosexual.
Show me where I said otherwise.
And my point is that if you take issue with me labeling them "pedophiles," i'm happy to concede that and refer to them by the more palatable term "child molesters" or "sexual abusers of minors," or any other term that notes that taboo nature of the engagement. The point is that these people are engaging in sexual crimes against minors.
It's crazy to me that you could see an adult male inappropriately touching a minor male and think the issue is as superficial as the adult being gay, rather than some deeper proclivity that attracts him to 14 year olds.
If a male teacher inappropriately touches his 13 year old female student, nobody thinks "these damn hetero teachers..." They think "hm...people who are sexually attracted to junior high students shouldn't be junior high teachers."
Ok, it sounds like you've misunderstood my position. I've never said that gay men are more likely to be sexual abusers at large. But when you look at the pattern of sexual abuse in the Church, you cannot ignore the fact that most of the abuse is homosexual in nature. That is a fact. End stop.
The question then is, why? Coincidence? I don't think you believe that, and I don't either. I tend to subscribe to Andrew Sullivan's (and other notable Catholics, gays, and others) belief that gay men who are attracted to the Church as a cover for their "sin" are perhaps susceptible to a host of disorders, including abusing their power for repressed sexual gratification.
This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.
-
This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.
Let the record reflect I've asked KSUW at least two times already to explain why he thinks it is important to acknowledge this link, correlation, whatever.
-
This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.
Let the record reflect I've asked KSUW at least two times already to explain why he thinks it is important to acknowledge this link, correlation, whatever.
He pretty clearly answers that there: “If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes.” I mean, if there is a link, it would be important.
-
This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.
Let the record reflect I've asked KSUW at least two times already to explain why he thinks it is important to acknowledge this link, correlation, whatever.
I've already explained that in several posts, including this one:
The Church should also be focused on better reporting and enforcement measures, but doing a better job of barring the bad apples from the priesthood in the first place is just as important. To that end, while the undeniable homosexual element to the abuse makes people very uncomfortable from a PC standpoint, it is relevant when considering how to best prevent future abuse.
Some gays such as Andrew Sullivan acknowledge the link but believe that it's the closeted, sexually repressed, and self-hating nature (his words) of gays who choose to enter the priesthood that makes them particularly prone to being abusers. So is the solution to allow priests to marry, thus making the Church a less enticing draw for that sort of person? Seems like a good idea to me for all sorts of reasons - not just this. Or maybe the solution is to allow gay priests to serve openly (let's get real - that's not gonna happen). Or maybe be more stringent in barring homosexuals from entering the priesthood (hard to see how that's practical, or consistent with the idea that priests are supposed to be celibate anyway).
It's a difficult but important issue for the Church (and really everyone). What we don't need is the typical liberal politically correct denial of the obvious and efforts to shut down any discussion on the topic by calling people bigots, etc.
Identifying all the causes of the problem helps develop the best solution to the problem.
-
I think requiring priests to be celibate makes the profession more attractive to homosexuals than it otherwise would be, but I don't see how removing that requirement would make the profession any less attractive to people who want to rape children.
-
i don't want to carefully read this thread and i know some of you have basically said the same, but i'd like to make it more explicit - the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.
i don't believe there is any connection to religion other than that. if, in the future, the catholic church makes it harder either access victims or escape punishment, pedophiles in the future will flock into other professions (pediatrics, wrestling coach, dunno).
:thumbs:
I think the more likely explanation is the (understandable) perception that the priesthood is a pretty good profession for predators based on the access to minors, inherent authority/trust between priests and parishes, and institutional protection priests have been afforded.
Ok, it sounds like you've misunderstood my position. I've never said that gay men are more likely to be sexual abusers at large. But when you look at the pattern of sexual abuse in the Church, you cannot ignore the fact that most of the abuse is homosexual in nature. That is a fact. End stop.
The question then is, why? Coincidence? I don't think you believe that, and I don't either. I tend to subscribe to Andrew Sullivan's (and other notable Catholics, gays, and others) belief that gay men who are attracted to the Church as a cover for their "sin" are perhaps susceptible to a host of disorders, including abusing their power for repressed sexual gratification.
This isn't about trying to blame homosexuality, or about linking homosexuality to sexual abuse. If you are trying to solve a problem, you first need to try to identify the causes. And to ignore the strong correlation between sexual abuse and homosexuality in the Church, you are deliberately blinding yourself to all the available data in the name of political correctness.
Gotcha. You're right. I was misunderstanding your position. You're not saying what I thought you were saying. I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'll think about it.
-
Could start with limiting priest access to children.
-
It's really hard to believe that parents still allow their kids to be altar boys/girls/whatever.
-
It's really hard to believe that parents still allow their kids to be altar boys/girls/whatever.
Faith is a powerful thing
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just cannot reconcile the argument that a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize without also presuming that gays are more likely to be child molesters.
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.
Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.
-
Aren't the libtards pushing to normalize pedophilia anyways??? The Catholics just need to hang on for a few years until its officially homophobic to condemn pedophilia.
really?
-
interesting articles. https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/20/us/ap-us-sexual-misconduct-gay-priests.html (https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/20/us/ap-us-sexual-misconduct-gay-priests.html)
I was particularly surprised that, even if there is a vigorous debate in the Church as to whether gay priests are a problem, there seems to be general agreement on both sides that a significant percentage of priests are gay.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/04/20/how_the_catholic_priesthood_became_a_haven_for_many_gay_men.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/04/20/how_the_catholic_priesthood_became_a_haven_for_many_gay_men.html)
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/29/catholic-priests-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/07/29/catholic-priests-its-empirical-fact-that-many-clergy-are-gay)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/07/23/the-catholic-churchs-sex-abuse-scandals-show-it-has-a-gay-priest-problem-theyre-trapped-in-the-closet/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/07/23/the-catholic-churchs-sex-abuse-scandals-show-it-has-a-gay-priest-problem-theyre-trapped-in-the-closet/)
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.
Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.
This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest. That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.
Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.
This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest. That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.
It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.
-
i don't want to carefully read this thread and i know some of you have basically said the same, but i'd like to make it more explicit - the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.
i don't believe there is any connection to religion other than that. if, in the future, the catholic church makes it harder either access victims or escape punishment, pedophiles in the future will flock into other professions (pediatrics, wrestling coach, dunno).
You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.
-
I'm of the opinion the abuse is an outcome that's developed over time from the nature of priesthood and this needs to change.
Notice every time it's priests and boys (or priests abusing nuns) and not nuns and girls? Priests are the authority figure and hence the majority develop into the abusing personality.
-
You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.
at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?
-
You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.
at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?
Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm
-
at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?
Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm
there are no data in that link that provide information on the age at which pedophiles realize they are attracted to children.
-
at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?
Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm
there are no data in that link that provide information on the age at which pedophiles realize they are attracted to children.
You said:
the reason there are so many priests are pedophiles is because rational pedophiles have surveyed the available professions and come to the conclusion that being a priest offers them the best opportunity to both encounter victims and escape punishment.
The article states that the average age was 16 when they considered vocation also, the average age for the 2017 class was 34. The age that pedos begin their attraction is concurrent with puberty so around 15 or so. So if all these pedos are surveying the professions at 15-16 and select priesthood, what do they do for on average 18+ years until they are an authority priest? Hide it? It seems like there's a lot quicker and easier options to give in to their deviancy.
-
Wait, so to get this straight. You’re disagreeing with sys’s argument that rational pedophiles are attracted to the priesthood. In support you’re providing evidence that the age people develop/realize a sexual preference coincides with the age most priests begin to consider their vocation?
-
i would not make the assumption that data on how non-pedophile priests chose to become priests accurately describe how pedophile priests choose to become priests.
-
You obvs aren't familiar with the process to become a Catholic priest if you think it's a "profession" that pedos choose from on a list with teaching, daycare, coaching, etc. The Catholic church is not a cowboy church or wanna-be Evangelical group where a blowhard can sign here and become a priest overnight.
at what age do you think lad first realizes he wants to eff youngsters?
Here's a study of the most recent ordination class and studies are available back to the late 1990s. There's some interesting facts that don't line up with the they became a priest because pedo early. It's developed.
http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-085.cfm
It's an absurd premise, and stupid. I think it should be removed from the board.
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.
Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.
This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest. That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.
It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.
There were statistics earlier in the thread that 1.7% of girls and 3.3% boys in the Catholic Church have been abused. To get a ballpark est. I would take the gross number of girls abused and using statistics from general population figure out how many heterosexual priests there are. Subtract the hetero priests from total priests and you get gay priests. Then I would crosscheck to see if gay priests are abusing at a higher rate than general population.
-
Btw pedos are born that way. :surprised:
-
Why would allowing marriage de-incentivize a gay person from entering the priesthood? As for being openly gay, I don't think the church has any rule against that (not any more than being openly hetero at least). #3 seems pointless unless you believe that being gay makes one more likely to prey on children.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it just seems like if you really stipulate that gays are not more likely to be child molesters, it makes no sense why a "link" or "correlation" is important to recognize.
Allowing marriage wouldn't necessarily be a disincentive to gay people, but the current requirement of celibacy represents a greater sacrifice for a heterosexual. Gay people pretty much have to be celibate anyway if they are to avoid a sinful lifestyle.
This makes sense, but that logic would lead me to believe it would be heterosexual priests who were more likely to become sexually frustrated / depressed compared to someone who feels they cannot act on their sexual urges regardless of whether or not they are a priest. That gets into some pretty complex psychology, though, and I'd grant it is debatable.
It's possible they are. I'm not sure if any numbers for the percentage of priests that are homo/heterosexual exist, and I would be pretty skeptical about the accuracy of such figures.
There were statistics earlier in the thread that 1.7% of girls and 3.3% boys in the Catholic Church have been abused. To get a ballpark est. I would take the gross number of girls abused and using statistics from general population figure out how many heterosexual priests there are. Subtract the hetero priests from total priests and you get gay priests. Then I would crosscheck to see if gay priests are abusing at a higher rate than general population.
How do you identify the gay priests? It’s not like they would admit they are gay.
-
You would have to make the sane assumption that hetero priests were abusing girls and gay priests were abusing boys.
-
Girls are abused 2:1 over males
Gynephiles outnumber androphiles 20:1
-
Based off the two sets of statistics I would estimate that 20-25% of priests are gay
-
It also appears that androphiles abuse at a much higher clip :Yuck:
-
If this is true it explains why gays have been treated so poorly throughout history.
-
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/09/04/priests-arrested-miami-beach-sex-acts-in-car/ (https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/09/04/priests-arrested-miami-beach-sex-acts-in-car/)
-
That's improvement.
-
Yay they’re only having sex with each other!
-
Yay they’re only having sex with each other!
Yeah, that's fine imo
-
Based off the two sets of statistics I would estimate that 20-25% of priests are gay
I'd guess that number is probably 35-40%.
-
:horrorsurprise:
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/430828-two-cardinals-blame-plague-of-the-homosexual-agenda-for-clerical-sexual-abuse
Two cardinals claimed Tuesday that homosexuality was to blame for the abuse by clerics in the Catholic Church.
"We turn to you with deep distress! The Catholic world is adrift," U.S. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke and German Cardinal Walter Brandmüller wrote in a letter to the heads of the bishops' conferences.
The cardinals rebuked Pope Francis's statement that "abuse of power" was behind the Catholic Church's sexual abuse crisis.
"Sexual abuse is blamed on clericalism. But the first and primary fault of the clergy does not rest in the abuse of power but in having gone away from the truth of the Gospel," they wrote.
"The plague of the homosexual agenda has been spread within the Church, promoted by organized networks and protected by a climate of complicity and a conspiracy of silence," they continued.
-
It’s Penn State at scale
-
:sdeek:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You can tell that those dudes are living in another century based solely on the way they talk.
-
So they’re still ignoring the whole nun abuse thing or...?
-
So they’re still ignoring the whole nun abuse thing or...?
They are still ignoring literally everything
-
Blaming the issue on homosexuals is sort of new, though. That's more in line with what the baptists would do.
-
Blaming the issue on homosexuals is sort of new, though. That's more in line with what the baptists would do.
Kind of evangelically imo. Like I can see Mike Pence laying out some crap like that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
So I had a weird thought last night about how according to religion it's ok to be gay, you just can't act on it and you'll still go to heaven (I think) but then it's like but can you bone dudes in heaven then? If not then what's the point of going to heaven if you can't even have fun and relax.
I just don't understand religion I think
-
So then I expanded that to a lot of other harmless sins and I got to thinking about how lame it would be to have to spend eternity in some place that you can't have any fun. I googled it and apparently it's impossible to sin in heaven - boring.
-
Those are merely Earthly pleasures, though. They do not compare to the ecstasy of being spiritually fulfilled in Heaven.
-
Those are merely Earthly pleasures, though. They do not compare to the ecstasy of being spiritually fulfilled in Heaven.
No free seks in heaven?
-
Lib with the aggressive plea for Tannoudji's return.
-
So then I expanded that to a lot of other harmless sins and I got to thinking about how lame it would be to have to spend eternity in some place that you can't have any fun. I googled it and apparently it's impossible to sin in heaven - boring.
irl though most of the heaven (and especially hell) stuff is made up after the fact. none of it is in the actual bible other than very short references that could be interpreted in different ways. it's nuts to me that the idea of heaven and hell and all of the rules and regulations all came from dudes much later than when like jesus or moses or whoever your religion is into was around.
-
Rules are rules sd regardless of when they are made up out of thin air.
-
Those are merely Earthly pleasures, though. They do not compare to the ecstasy of being spiritually fulfilled in Heaven.
No free seks in heaven?
No sex at all
Will there be sex in heaven? What does the Bible say about this?
We Will Be Like the Angels
Jesus said that after we enter into the kingdom, we’ll be like the angels of God; but He did not say we will become angels of God. Angels have been around a lot longer than humans (Job 38:4-7). When Jesus was asked about irreconcilable differences for a woman who had married seven different brothers because of their subsequent deaths, they were trying to test Jesus and asked Him, “Whose wife will she be? For the seven had her as wife” (Mark 12:23). We should note that the Sadducees didn’t believe in miracles, angels, or even the afterlife; so they wanted to trap Jesus into answering an irrelevant question. They wanted to know which brother she would be the wife of (Mark 12:18-23). Jesus corrected them by saying, “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven” (Mark 12:25). We will be like the angels in the sense that we can’t marry or bear children anymore. Obviously, angels can’t have sex anyway because they were created by God and they are eternal; therefore, they have no need to have children.
-
lmao. this is the kind of logic that eventually leads us to the current rules and regs of heaven.
Obviously, angels can’t have sex anyway because they were created by God and they are eternal; therefore, they have no need to have children.
-
Yeah, I was going to bold that part but lazy
-
you see, it just wouldn't make a lick of sense if you still do anal in heaven. follow my logic here, in Mark chapter 2....
-
So then I expanded that to a lot of other harmless sins and I got to thinking about how lame it would be to have to spend eternity in some place that you can't have any fun. I googled it and apparently it's impossible to sin in heaven - boring.
That’s like being bummed you can’t go to your fourth cousin’s baby shower because it’s the same day you’re scheduled to get married / receive a Nobel prize / go to space / etc.
Yeah you’re gonna miss it, but like are you really gonna MISS it?
-
lmao. this is the kind of logic that eventually leads us to the current rules and regs of heaven.
Obviously, angels can’t have sex anyway because they were created by God and they are eternal; therefore, they have no need to have children.
this was actually almost tested in sodom and gomorra. now we'll never know.
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
-
Also, what if you get tired of going to space one day and just do it? A bone ban?
-
Total cockblock
-
Just look at how much cockblocking religion does God's behalf here on Earth. Of course, God himself will do WAY more cockblocking in his own house.
-
But is it really a cockblock if eternal glory inceptions your mind to not even want to bone down any more?
-
But is it really a cockblock if eternal glory inceptions your mind to not even want to bone down any more?
yeah, I think the accepted terms and conditions are that you are basically neutered and don't even want to. but there is something even better. like you'll be in church 24/7/365 but it actually rules.
-
Seems like a fantastic opportunity for incels
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
I can’t tell if you’re joking or just don’t get the analogy.
-
You need to check with Pastor Rhe Holner. According to him, you are all very very wrong.
-
Wait, so what happens with the 72 virgins I was promised? They just stay virgins? What's the point?
-
Wait, so what happens with the 72 virgins I was promised? They just stay virgins? What's the point?
there are more exotic forms of sex in heaven. follow my logic here, in Deuteronomy chapter 13 verse 4 it clearly....
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
I can’t tell if you’re joking or just don’t get the analogy.
I get the concept that the bliss will be non-stop and continuous and sex will not even be able to penetrate the bliss but in my example, life long spouses, not being able to be intimate because you, yourself are so blissed out seems to be pretty selfish.
And what is the line? Hand holding? Kissing? petting?
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
I can’t tell if you’re joking or just don’t get the analogy.
I get the concept that the bliss will be non-stop and continuous and sex will not even be able to penetrate the bliss but in my example, life long spouses, not being able to be intimate because you, yourself are so blissed out seems to be pretty selfish.
And what is the line? Hand holding? Kissing? petting?
you know that crazy girl from HS who was saving herself for marriage by like going completely bonkers on the handys and blowys and always saying she's a virgin? well, we may have some insight into how this loophole applies even in heaven, follow me here. in Ecclesiastes chapter 4 verse 1......
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
I can’t tell if you’re joking or just don’t get the analogy.
I get the concept that the bliss will be non-stop and continuous and sex will not even be able to penetrate the bliss but in my example, life long spouses, not being able to be intimate because you, yourself are so blissed out seems to be pretty selfish.
And what is the line? Hand holding? Kissing? petting?
Obviously it’s all philosophical at this point, but you’re still looking at it from the wrong angle. Most Christian groups’ concept of heaven is more like the cave analogy in Plato’s Republic. Everything good we have here including intimacy with other human beings is just a shadow of what happiness and joy actually looks like. They feel like the highest forms of enjoyment right now but that’s only because we can’t comprehend anything better (like a dude chained up in a cave his entire life watching shadows of objects on a wall in front of him and thinking those are the same as the objects themselves).
-
Legit IRL lol’d several times at the follow my logic here posts SD :lol:
-
Heaven sounds like lots of forced choices and no intimacy. Like, your spouse dies and you promise to see her in heaven but you live another 10 years. You die then see her in heaven is god like “look but don’t touch”!
Lots of people would pick intimacy with a long lost spouse over going to space. That’s stupid ah
I can’t tell if you’re joking or just don’t get the analogy.
I get the concept that the bliss will be non-stop and continuous and sex will not even be able to penetrate the bliss but in my example, life long spouses, not being able to be intimate because you, yourself are so blissed out seems to be pretty selfish.
And what is the line? Hand holding? Kissing? petting?
Obviously it’s all philosophical at this point, but you’re still looking at it from the wrong angle. Most Christian groups’ concept of heaven is more like the cave analogy in Plato’s Republic. Everything good we have here including intimacy with other human beings is just a shadow of what happiness and joy actually looks like. They feel like the highest forms of enjoyment right now but that’s only because we can’t comprehend anything better (like a dude chained up in a cave his entire life watching shadows of objects on a wall in front of him and thinking those are the same as the objects themselves).
So why would you in real life have a wife or children?
-
Better get your freak sex in now I say. Can't take a chance like that.
-
So why would you in real life have a wife or children?
Same reason I do most things. It makes me happy. I certainly don’t think everyone needs to have a family.
It’s pretty human to crave intimacy, purpose, fulfillment, etc. in addition to the basic stuff like food and water. That doesn’t mean you’ll crave those same things in the afterlife, although you can believe (like I do) that they stem from more fundamental needs that can only be fully satisfied in a place like heaven.
-
I certainly don’t think everyone needs to have a family.
How dare you
-
opening this thread for the first time on page 7 is :horrorsurprise:
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
Its going to be all good, your and you wife with both be up in heaven, giving high-fives and pounding puss constantly.
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
Its going to be all good, your and you wife with both be up in heaven, giving high-fives and pounding puss constantly.
PoundTown isn't just a place in Salina.
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
You would make a good ISU fan. Perfectly happy with mediocrity and can’t imagine anything better.
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
You would make a good ISU fan. Perfectly happy with mediocrity and can’t imagine anything better.
You’d make a good Baylor fan
-
:lol:
-
Ouchie
-
Board has been ruthless lately, I’m enjoying it.
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
You would make a good ISU fan. Perfectly happy with mediocrity and can’t imagine anything better.
You’d make a good Baylor fan
lmao
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It’s insane that god would say you can’t make out with your wife. My gosh that’s twisted
You would make a good ISU fan. Perfectly happy with mediocrity and can’t imagine anything better.
You’d make a good Baylor fan
See, no imagination at all
-
https://1350kman.com/ex-manhattan-priest-among-14-in-diocese-alleged-to-have-sexually-abused-children/