by VorJack
Three bad arguments over the Church Sexual Abuse scandal:
Russ Douthat, “Pox on both your houses” argument:
In reality, the scandal implicates left and right alike. The permissive sexual culture that prevailed everywhere, seminaries included, during the silly season of the ’70s deserves a share of the blame, as does that era’s overemphasis on therapy. (Again and again, bishops relied on psychiatrists rather than common sense in deciding how to handle abusive clerics.) But it was the church’s conservative instincts — the insistence on institutional loyalty, obedience and the absolute authority of clerics — that allowed the abuse to spread unpunished.
I missed the part of sexual revolution where they decided that consent was no longer important.
Bill Donohue, “Definitions Game” argument:
Donohue: You’ve got to get your facts straight. I’m sorry. If I’m the only one that’s going to deal with facts tonight so be it. The vast majority of the victims are post pubescent. That’s not pedophilia buddy. That’s homosexuality.
No, technically that’s pederasty.
Bishop of Tenerife, Bernardo Álvarez, “Blame the victim” argument (several years old now, but still relevant, sadly):
His comments were that there are youngsters who want to be abused, and he compared that abuse to homosexuality, describing them both as prejudicial to society. He said that on occasions the abuse happened because the there are children who consent to it.
‘There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you’, he said.
No comment.
They will use anything that lays the blame on others and not the church. By putting these out here they have allowed their members something to grasp so they don’t have to really look deeply into it.
Generally good. I just don’t understand how pederasty and homosexuality are mutually exclusive.
I would say that depends on ages of consent in various states in the US or in other countries. Pederasty would be statutory rape (at least, if not right out child rape) if the young person in question is a minor. Pederasty would be a homosexual relationship if the young person in question is of age.
But they’re not mutually exclusive, right? Wouldn’t we expect a homosexual pederast to go after children of the same sex and a heterosexual pederast to go after children of the opposite sex? (I suppose we could throw in bisexual and children of either sex.)
Even if a thirteen year old consents, they don’t know what they’re consenting to – so it’s consent but it’s not informed consent. That little distinction is enough to get medical professionals sued fairly regularly, and it’s why parents make decisions for their children until they’re old enough to do it themselves. Besides that, how hard do you think it is for a person in a position of power, authority and/or influence to convince a child to do something that the child doesn’t really understand? The old cliche of “Let’s play a secret game! You can’t tell anybody though!” is a cliche for a good reason. Here’s somebody older than you who you respect and want to impress, and they’re going to let you in on a secret that’s just between you them – for a child, particularly a boy, that seems very cool so you just go with it. Often the abuse will start at such a young age that the child has no real conception of what it all means and doesn’t know that it’s wrong; by the time they’re old enough to realise that it was wrong, it’s already a secret they’ll have kept for years. Often they can’t then reveal that secret to family or close friends without risking serious harm to relationships and the emotional health of loved ones, and so the abuser gets away with it.
Ramen. And as I was a child of sexual abuse, this is 100% true. When you fully understand the magnitude of whats happened to you, its too late. You are haunted.
I don’t think anybody else can ever know the torture of it.
Not that I agree with any of these dickwads, but it seems there is a cultural/legal disconnect.
Do priests have diplomatic immunity as does the Pope?
Not to mention some gross cognitive disconnect. I simply do not understand how catholics cannot – and apparently will not – distance themselves from an organisation that does such horrible things to so many people. Hell, if I found out my boss was doing something even remotely like this, you bet that I’d be out of there before you could blink. But it’s religion, so as always, they get a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
They seem to be totally ignoring the vast numbers of girls that were molested or raped. I strongly suspect there are many, many girls and women who have not reported sexual contact with priests.
Make it four: “Blame the jews”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/catholic-bishop-blames-jews
Whatever the argument, priests should not molest or rape anyone (and neither should anyone else, obviously). Whether the priests try to excuse it by arguing permissiveness and therapy, post-pubescent victims, or the victim’s fault, doesn’t matter. Priests should not do it to anyone of any age. Doesn’t their vow mean anything to them? OK, silly question.
To dismiss it by saying that “The vast majority of the victims are post pubescent” is irrelevant and unforgivable. There were still plenty of victims who were way younger.
To dismiss it as the victim’s fault is risible. What about the priest’s responsibility? Why did they they say yes, even of the victim wanted it?
Hopefully this is not going to go away until some serious questions have been asked and asnwered.
It’s like saying a rape victim was at fault because ‘they dressed provocatively’ or something like that.
Oh wait. These people do say that.
“To dismiss it as the victim’s fault is risible. What about the priest’s responsibility? Why did they they say yes, even of the victim wanted it?”
Exactly. It’s a pathetic excuse.
That was supposed to be a reply to Len.
The Donohue argument is basically that rape of a post pubescent is somehow OK, which anyone with an ounce of decency should find repulsive.
If we extrapolate what he says, it would seem that aynone, of any age, is a potential victim of a catholic priest. Thanks, Mr Donahue, for pointing that out.
Yeah, me too.
Might be helpful to keep in mind that what you call the ‘Church’ is…not, regardless of what (or who) they call themselves for every tree is known by its fruits alone. They are merely long-robed ones who have chiseled for themselves epitaphs of piety. The true ‘Church’ is one that manifests the life and nature of the Head of the (true) church, is a spiritual people, don’t necessarily meet in a building, are very much One and the same, in fact are inseparable, you can’t tell them apart because they…aren’t. When you’ve seen one, you’ve seen the Father, JC saying ‘when you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father’.
Love to all (but especially to Custy cuz I just read that he pierced his ‘nads, ouch dude! What were u thinking? Not too…’reasonable’, so no mo’ please? Be good to my fav Brit eh? :)
I was going to reply to you, but I can’t make heads or tails of the nonsense you just posted.
We’ve all heard the phrase ‘the apple didn’t fall far from the tree’ or ‘the boy is just like his father’ right? All hings reproduce after their own kind DDM, including (spiritual) sons of their Father. So, by that same ‘reason’ when we see such a severe chasm, disparity in the life, nature and conduct of these ‘so-called’ Christians (religious imposters) compared to Christ Himself, there is only one ‘reasonable’ conclusion. And that is, that they…aren’t of Him, at least not yet for they manifest an entirely different life, nature and conduct, ie fruit than the one that Christ did and does.
Firstly, there is no “Him.” Second, it does not help in the least to remember that they are not the true church. Nobody here is calling it the true church, it’s just a church. What would be helpful might be if you read what they used for excuses and were appropriately disturbed that they think there is nothing wrong with what they did.
What would be helpful for you would be to have some relevant response, like, how dare they act like because they think they are the church that no one should be angry at them and pressure them until they admit they acted irresponsibly and clean out their house of worship in an appropriate way instead of thinking they have ninety-nine excuses for raping children and that we should just chill out and let them sweep it under the rug and keep doing whatever they like. What you consider the “truth” for the eleven gazillionth time has no bearing on what an appropriate reaction to this scandal would be. They pose for your god, and an appropriate reaction from a “true Christian” that you consider yourself to be would not be to proselytize the difference between you and them to us, but to put them on a skewer and hold them over the fire until they admit they are horrible people and there are no excuses for raping children (or anyone).
We don’t believe any of your horseshlt, so we would like it if your contribution to any given discussion had something to do with the article and your reaction to it besides what the lord means to you.
John, I agree with Kodie. You saying that they are not the true church is not relevant to the issue at hand.
While putting themselves forward as members and representatives of the true church, they commited reprehensible acts against the most innocent of your god’s children. If someone mascerades as a person of trust and does something similar, then the group who have been defamed could be expected to make sure that the culprits, not the victims, were punished. Those defamed would not make excuses for the culprits, saying it was because of the permissive society of the day (then why did it happen before and since?). Or that it was the victims’ fault – oh those poor, tempted priests, unable to get away. Or that the victims were post-pubescent, so that’s OK then. Or that it was because the Jews were attacking the church.
When will catholics rise up and kick these evil people out? Or do you expect atheists to do it, so you don’t have to feel guilty about acting the way you know you should?
What would Jesus do?
Can’t make sense of something John C. posted? It must be a day that ends in “y.”
Seriously? That’s your comment? They aren’t “technically” the church?
Wow.
They are raping kids, covering it up and then blaming the victims and everyone else they can think of.
No one gives a fuck what they’re called.
No, they are absolutely NOT the (true) ‘Church’, its impossible, they dont manifest the Life of Christ. The “Church’ is a spiritual ‘body’, not a physical building (do i need to quote scripture? ha). There is a vast difference between ‘religion’ and Christ. In fact, JC is always at odds with the ‘religious’ leaders in the New Testament, they are polar opposites. All the best.
What the frak does that have to do with them raping children?
Yeah, there’s no relevance in your statement at all John C. That’s normal for you, but nobody here is arguing that the Catholics are the true church, and it doesn’t add anything to the discussion when you say they aren’t, or when you say what you think the true church is, or whatever you’re babbling about. Maybe you should read the post and respond to what it’s actually about instead of witnessing.
John, in the nicest possible way: SHUT UP. This is not a subject for you to be proselytizing and sharing your opinions on what makes a True Christian ™. The subject under discussion is painful enough for some of us that we really don’t want to read your off-topic philosophy aswell.
“The true church is not the true church ™ (blather blather, and more johnc nincompoopetry) ”
Die in a Fire.
All the best,
- Sunny Day
All the best,
- Sunny Day
ROFL
John C’s maundering rambles have been considered for a ban before.
They’re not the true church, good for them. Can a Microsoft knock-off company get away with covering up the rape interns because they’re not the True Microsoft then?
If JC (I’m guessing either Jesus Christ or John Cena, neither of whom can sell death) has a problem with this, it’s probably about time he came down and made that plain. Otherwise the institution founded on HIS rock will still be seen to have done this in his name.
That wasn’t the institution ‘founded on His rock’ JWM. The ‘rock’ in that passage about Peter is referring to intimacy, a mutual ‘knowing’ Christ asking his disciples who they thought he was and only Peter by revelation (a key to this text) ‘knowing’ who he truly was and Christ in return saying ‘Yes, and you are Peter’ meaning I know you and you know me. Intimacy/knowing is the ‘rock’ of Christ’s “church’, not Peter.
I’m glad you’re here to translate for an omnipotent deity, but you might want to try to get the letters of my name in the right order at least once before I take your word for what the Word was trying to say.
My apologies…please forgive.
Some christians who preach love don’t practice simple respect or even courtesy.
He not only ignores getting names right, when Roger asked John C to use the name “Roger” instead of “Rog”, John C started ridiculing him and getting a bit sarcastic.
That’s not true Claid…I always treat everyone the way I would want to be treated sir, its the ‘golden rule’.
Apology accepted. Let’s try to get back on track.
You’re a callous, unfeeling twat, John C.
Thanks to Custador, I believe we are back on track. =)
More name-calling, how helpful and original. Still, I love ya man. All the best.
Read up the thread John. I asked you to shut up and stop spouting flowery, irrelevant bullshit about Real Christians ™ on a thread which other people find quite painful. You ignored that simple request.
The conservative Christian fundamentalist Calvinist argument:
“The wages of sin is death” (hell). We are all born sinners.
As one of my former ministers use to say on a regular basis “Anything short of burning hell, you’re getting off easy”.
So these sinful children should be happy that they are not getting what the truly deserve. Things could be worst.
The Vatican as well as a reporter for the Wall Street Journal (I can’t remember her name) views the reporting on clerical sexual abuse as nothing more than a plot by the liberal press to attack the Vatican, because the Vatican opposes gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, etc…
But the truth is many completing religions are salivating over this story. They see a flood of new ex-Catholics as new converts for their churches. Just like GM, Ford and Chrysler see the crisis at Toyota as an opportunity for new customers.
The crap which falls out of Bill Donohue’s mouth is so rotten it makes The Bog of Eternal Stench look like a rose garden. His arrogant pieties are like ticks which suck the life juices out of all humanity.
His arrogant pieties are like ticks which suck the life juices out of all humanity.
Damn you go. Color me impressed! =)
You get an Internet Win for making a Labyrinth reference :-)
Yeah, Bill Donohue is a hive of scum and villainy.
http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
A review of sexual abuse in the U.S., sponsored by the Catholic Church, found that “…4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.”
Those are just the reported cases — just in the US.
The study also states that only 3% of abusers were convicted of crimes.
Well, we have to assume that not all of those accused were guilty, but 97%? Not a chance. I’d be interested how many were even reported to the authorities and brought up on charges, whether they were found guilty or not. Did the police know about or make any effort to prosecute these cases?
This might have been said again and again, so my apologies if so; but doesn’t it strike a bit hypocritical how the Catholic Church can spend so much time and effort on monitoring OUR supposed sexual transgressions, but completely covers up their own and makes ridiculous excuses to divert attention from or sometimes even justify them?
On another note, I strongly suspect that whenever you have men (and women) in positions of power that they will often take advantage in heinous ways. Does anyone have any other figures for sexual abuse in other religions by their clerics, monks, shamans or whatever? I suspect it is probably equal with the Catholic Church but most definitely the victims refuse to talk about it or there is a massive cover up.
There was a link a few posts back about abuse in the Baptist chuches in the US, affiliated to the Southern Baptist Convention(?). Main difference is that the churches are all separate, so there’s no overall record keeping of who did what to whom, where and why he was moved somewhere else, like there is for the Catholic Church.
Darth Ratzinger has actually acknowledged that it’s not all fantasy! AMAZING!