It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Catholic Bishops: Obama's Solution 'Is Unacceptable'

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

You raise good and valid points.

You're right about the problems counting gays, especially in countries where there is significant persecution. You can't tell in the case of youngsters, they're just not counted. As far as my understanding of the percentage goes, I looked in three places, Centers for Disease Control, Census Bureau, and a Wiki answer that referenced five different studies. All of the numbers I saw were between 0.6% and 5.4% I'm just picking 3-4% as a convenience. If you'd like I'll get those links to you.

The only reason I brought up the homosexuality figure was because it was the only other human behavior I knew, off the top of my head, that was about 4% of the population. If 4% of the population wore mullets, I would have used that. And the purpose of all that was to try to show that relatively few priests were accused of sex abuse, not a "rampant" situation.

Some of your questions I'm having a hard time answering, I know what I want to say, I think, but I'm having trouble with the words. Here are your points I'm talking about:

I am talking about an organization that facilitates and covers up and illegal sexual act.

OK, try it this way. If people molest children in the US and people molest children in Zimbabwe, then it would hardly be fair to just leave the comparison at that and only look at child molesters.

But.

If Company XYZ turned out to be molesting children in the US and in Zimbabwe, would it not be fair to take a look at company XYZ?

The Vatican knew all too well what was going on and took part in the priest swapping that was the main crux of the coverup. There is a reason THE CATHOLIC CHURCH has paid out over a billion dollars in restitution to victims of sexual abuse. I can hardly find any other single organization to even dream of coming close to that.
Part of my problem is that there is the Church, the Vatican, National Bishops Conferences, individual dioceses, and something called "The Pink Mafia." All different.

Of course, the Church, as the teachings and principles of Catholicism would never accept or approve of any of that behavior.

The Vatican might be compared to the White House, or maybe Washington D.C., back in the early 1800's. The dioceses (the area that a bishop has under his control) might be compared to the States. There was a lot of State's Rights talk back then and The Federal government pretty much left the states alone. Believe it or not, the abuse problem had gotten pretty significant before the "States" let the Vatican know what was going on. Mostly it was hushed up in the diocese and never got out. "The Pink Mafia" was kind of an unofficial secret network or club for gay priests, going as high as Archbishops and possibly Cardinals, who would look out for each other in various ways. It had no boundaries. I don't know to what extent it still exists.

Some of the transfer of priests was part of the 'hushing-up" process, but part of it also was that at that time the best medical course of action was a change of situation and extensive therapy for the offender. Criminal proceedings were seen as a poor choice by the psychiatric community.

Anyway, I see I'm writing a book. I suppose it is both tiring and boring so I'll get off. One good thing to come from this is that the number of abuse incidents (not the number of reports of past incidents) fell to a very low level in the mid '80s and has stayed there since. It looks like the Vatican has got it under control.


With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


To quote you from a different thread:

...and black people will shrivel up and die without their daily slice of watermelon. Aren't generalisations a bitch?

I can introduce you to a dozen or so priests/pastors/rabbis/imams, that all belong to faiths that I don't adhere too, that have done wonderous things for my community.



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

You raise good and valid points.

You're right about the problems counting gays, especially in countries where there is significant persecution. You can't tell in the case of youngsters, they're just not counted. As far as my understanding of the percentage goes, I looked in three places, Centers for Disease Control, Census Bureau, and a Wiki answer that referenced five different studies. All of the numbers I saw were between 0.6% and 5.4% I'm just picking 3-4% as a convenience. If you'd like I'll get those links to you.


I have just never believed studies that purport to be able to count gays. My cousin did not admit he was gay to himself until he was in his late 20s. So for a quarter century he counted himself as straight all while not knowing why women grossed him out.


The only reason I brought up the homosexuality figure was because it was the only other human behavior I knew, off the top of my head, that was about 4% of the population. If 4% of the population wore mullets, I would have used that. And the purpose of all that was to try to show that relatively few priests were accused of sex abuse, not a "rampant" situation.


Fair enough.


Some of your questions I'm having a hard time answering, I know what I want to say, I think, but I'm having trouble with the words. Here are your points I'm talking about:

I am talking about an organization that facilitates and covers up and illegal sexual act.

OK, try it this way. If people molest children in the US and people molest children in Zimbabwe, then it would hardly be fair to just leave the comparison at that and only look at child molesters.

But.

If Company XYZ turned out to be molesting children in the US and in Zimbabwe, would it not be fair to take a look at company XYZ?

The Vatican knew all too well what was going on and took part in the priest swapping that was the main crux of the coverup. There is a reason THE CATHOLIC CHURCH has paid out over a billion dollars in restitution to victims of sexual abuse. I can hardly find any other single organization to even dream of coming close to that.
Part of my problem is that there is the Church, the Vatican, National Bishops Conferences, individual dioceses, and something called "The Pink Mafia." All different.

Of course, the Church, as the teachings and principles of Catholicism would never accept or approve of any of that behavior.

The Vatican might be compared to the White House, or maybe Washington D.C., back in the early 1800's. The dioceses (the area that a bishop has under his control) might be compared to the States. There was a lot of State's Rights talk back then and The Federal government pretty much left the states alone. Believe it or not, the abuse problem had gotten pretty significant before the "States" let the Vatican know what was going on. Mostly it was hushed up in the diocese and never got out. "The Pink Mafia" was kind of an unofficial secret network or club for gay priests, going as high as Archbishops and possibly Cardinals, who would look out for each other in various ways. It had no boundaries. I don't know to what extent it still exists.


See, what I am hearing is "That is not the church doing that, it has almost nothing to even do with the church, it is just all the people running the church that were involved. Not the building or the dictionary definition of the word, just the people that make up the formal body of it."

It is hard for me to reconcile those opposing ideas.



Some of the transfer of priests was part of the 'hushing-up" process, but part of it also was that at that time the best medical course of action was a change of situation and extensive therapy for the offender.


NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was still a damn crime to rape a kid. There is no "Well the priest decided he needed the therapy of a new parish."
Sorry but I feel you are better than what I just read. I hope I missed something.


Criminal proceedings were seen as a poor choice by the psychiatric community.


Where are you getting this from? The Catholic church was rotating molesting priests. Psychiatrists were not en masse rotating child molesters. I do not even get what you are saying. These were crimes. The Priest that did the crime is guilty and the person that decided they needed therapy instead of court is also guilty and that is my point.

Can you please give me the name of one Psychiatrist that knew of even one priest that raped a child and helped that priest avoid legal prosecution and recommended he just move for therapy?



posted on Feb, 15 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952


Anyway, I see I'm writing a book. I suppose it is both tiring and boring so I'll get off. One good thing to come from this is that the number of abuse incidents (not the number of reports of past incidents) fell to a very low level in the mid '80s and has stayed there since. It looks like the Vatican has got it under control.


With respect,
Charles1952


Has it really? That would be news to me.
One thing that stands out to me is that what the church was mainly guilty of was not the raping but the knowledge of and facilitation of the raping. The knew how to get away with it, for a while. Then they got busted wide open. Then, magically, without any particular policy change the numbers just got better. How about that?



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Dear Still,

I know of too many people who were victims of sexual abuse. It is stomach turning no matter who does it or to whom it is done. I can't defend it, I wouldn't want to defend it.

I'm going to ask you to do something I haven't asked before. Would you mind looking at these two links? They refer to the John Jay College studies of this problem. One study was released in 2004, the other was 2010 (I believe) www.jjay.cuny.edu... This one links to a press release concerning the 2010 study. It has a link to the full report.

The bulk of cases occurred decades ago," said Karen Terry, PhD., John Jay's principal investigator for the report. "The increased frequency of abuse in the 1960s and 1970s was consistent with the patterns of increased deviance of society during that time. "She also stated that "social influences intersected with vulnerabilities of individual priests whose preparation for a life of celibacy was inadequate at that time." Terry also said that neither celibacy nor homosexuality were causes of the abuse, and that priest candidates who would later abuse could not be distinguished by psychological test data, developmental and sexual history data, intelligence data, or experience in priesthood. The development of human formation components of seminary preparation for priesthood is associated with the continued low levels of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States, she said.

The study also found that the initial, mid-1980s response of bishops to allegations of abuse was to concentrate on getting help for the priest-abusers. Despite the development of a comprehensive plan for response to victims and the harms of sexual abuse by the mid-1990s, diocesan implementation was not consistent or thorough at that time. Yet, the decrease in incidence of sexual abuse cases by clergy was more rapid than the overall societal patterns.


This link is to wikipedia and has a good summary of the 2004 study. It also has a link to the full report.
www.ask.com...

The Report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time covered by the study. The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.

The surveys filtered information provided from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.
So 1092 priests were alive when they were accused, 1021 were referred to police, of those 38% were charged, 25% were convicted, and 10% got jail time.

I'm not trying to dodge you, but this is an ugly subject and the John Jay reports are considered to be very objective. They will present the information more efficiently than I would.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I am more than happy to look over your link.
I have one of my own to suggest.
link
Apparently the Vatican disputes the study you cited by quite a wide margin.



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Thanks for the link. Hey, I'm doing the best I can trying to find American stuff.

One of the things I've noticed is that there can be quite a time lag between the offense and the report, in extreme cases 30-40 years. I just don't know enough about Italy to say anything intelligent. All I can say right now is that that's one report every seven weeks, but besides saying that's too many, I've got nothing else.

Oh, we were talking about neutral sources? The link was to the website of a law firm that specializes in sex abuse cases. But I accept the figures anyway, even if I'm not clear on their meaning.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 16 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Still
 

Dear Still,

Thanks for the link. Hey, I'm doing the best I can trying to find American stuff.


But the Catholic Church is not an American institution. It is based out of Italy and is global.


One of the things I've noticed is that there can be quite a time lag between the offense and the report, in extreme cases 30-40 years. I just don't know enough about Italy to say anything intelligent. All I can say right now is that that's one report every seven weeks, but besides saying that's too many, I've got nothing else.


Do you see what I see though? One priest found guilty of how many hundreds of rapes? How many different churches was he ushered through by bishops who knew why he needed to be moved? Do you see the over 1 BILLION DOLLARS the church has paid out to victims? This is more than a few isolated cases that were reported to the cops.



Oh, we were talking about neutral sources? The link was to the website of a law firm that specializes in sex abuse cases. But I accept the figures anyway, even if I'm not clear on their meaning.


I am not sure I see that. Obviously Catholic Bishops have the interest of protecting the imaged of the Catholic church thus the bias.
A legal firm that specializes in sex abuse cases has the interest of protecting whom?
I cannot find an answer other than "victims of sex abuse."
Are you comparing bias by bishops to protect their church to bias by lawyers against people who actually are guilty of abusing children to protect um...child victims of sexual abuse?
I am willing to hear you out but I do not see the bias you seem to.


With respect,
Charles1952


You have been more than respectful so far so I hope you will understand if I have been even slower to respond. I might not really have time until this weekend to answer you properly in the many conversations we are having.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join