1 edit
Originally posted by David CI'm can't be bothered to post the link with the statistics a third time.
Which statistics might those be, then?
True, a priest who molests younger children has access to many more children than the average citizen. The statistics didn't really take into account multiple offences (as you predicted), but that doesn't alter the number of offenders. Perhaps instead of condemning them all, we should lobby for the supervision of sunday schools if the problem is in the tiny minority (who may or may not be multiple offenders)
The few priests who moelst small children shouldn't tarnish the image of the rest.
It just annoys me when people lap up the media hype and don't look at the big picture.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyOh, you mean this one?
I'm can't be bothered to post the link with the statistics a third time.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm
Two widely circulated estimates suggest that approximately 2% to 6% of Roman Catholic priests abuse children and youths. This compares with other common estimates: that perhaps 1% of all adults and 2% of all adult males are abusive pedophiles. However, priests have freer access to many children than does the average male.
Not quite sure how this type of statistic bears out your claim that "priests are less likely to molest young boys ", but whatever. As the article seems to state over and over, there is no precise data on which to base the percentages.
2 edits
Originally posted by David CChildren and youths, exactly. There is a difference between a paedophile and a hebephile as stated in the article. If you read the rest of the article it goes on to state that most of those abused were between 16 and 17 years of age, and the incidence of pedophiles among priests is 0.15%.
Oh, you mean this one?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm
[quote]Two widely circulated estimates suggest that approximately 2% to 6% of Roman Catholic priests abuse children and youths. This compares with other common estimates: that perhaps 1% of all adults and 2% of all adult males are abusive pedophiles. However, priests have freer ...[text shortened]... cle seems to state over and over, there is no precise data on which to base the percentages.
I'm not saying it's right, but I guess I just have a thing against false accusations.
And yes, there most likely isn't sufficient statistical evidence to say either way whether or not catholic priests are more likely to molest children compared to the rest of the population, which is precisely why people shouldn't go on a witchhunt when it comes to the catholic church and paedophiles, especially when the only evidence to hand is media hype. And when the only evidence to hand is fuzzy, and doesn't suggest deviation from the norm, you can't say there is any deviation.
Our outrage over the priest who abuses kids is similar to that over a doctor who murders his/her patients. These are authority figures that many people place a lot of trust in and in some respects idolise.
When we realise that they're only humans - they have faults like anyone else - it can be a shock to the system and we can go over the top, which I would suggest Xanthos has done.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning abuse of any sort, but a little perspective never goes astray.
You don't need to be a priest to be an abuser.
And many priests do not abuse.
3 edits
Originally posted by amannionYou hit the nail on the head there. I think this is exactly why we get upset. When a person with the power to do damage (supposedly very good in heart and soul) abuse his/her power to take advantage of defenseless people we get upset.
Our outrage over the priest who abuses kids is similar to that over a doctor who murders his/her patients. These are authority figures that many people place a lot of trust in and in some respects idolise.
When we realise that they're only humans - they have faults like anyone else - it can be a shock to the system and we can go over the top, which I woul goes astray.
You don't need to be a priest to be an abuser.
And many priests do not abuse.
The question then is: Should there really be such a position available? Are priests really necessary as authorative figures? Shouldn't they just be advisors in spiritual matters to the followers of that church? Perhaps, the priests should be taught in priestschool how to masturbate to images of Mary (she was a virgin hoe after all, so she fits most men's fantasies in one way or the other) to keep that urge under control?
Originally posted by stockenI don't think it's a matter of whether there should be such positions - the fact is there are such positions. And given that there are, some people are going to get pissed off by abuses of power that occur.
You hit the nail on the head there. I think this is exactly why we get upset. When a person with the power to do damage (supposedly very good in heart and soul) abuse his/her power to take advantage of defenseless people we get upset.
The question then is: Should there really be such a position available? Are priests really necessary as authorative ...[text shortened]... ll, so she fits most men's fantasies in one way or the other) to keep that urge under control?
The virginity or otherwise of Mary is debatable.
There's good evidence to suggest that the early Christian church deliberately pushed the notion of a virgin birth to allow the subjugation of women.
But I think the absolute chastity of the Catholic church could be a problem so your masturbation idea has merits.
It'd be interesting to compare statistics of catholic abuse cases with other denominations where priests are able to marry and where the whole 'I'm-married-to-the-lord' thing just isn't an issue.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionLet me put it this way. The structure of the catholic church is obviously lacking something or noone would be able to abuse their powers like that. It should be changed. Same is true for a lot of powerstructures in society.
I don't think it's a matter of whether there [b]should be such positions - the fact is there are such positions. And given that there are, some people are going to get pissed off by abuses of power that occur.
The virginity or otherwise of Mary is debatable.
There's good evidence to suggest that the early Christian church deliberately pushed e able to marry and where the whole 'I'm-married-to-the-lord' thing just isn't an issue.[/b]
As for Mary's virginity being debatable or not, that's besides the point. A catholic priest would believe that she was a virgin prostitute (somehow they manage to reconcile the two). Thus, as a fantasy it works perfectly for them.
Originally posted by amannionWhat Nonsense ! Doctors can make mistakes or be negligent, therefore when a patient dies it is not premeditated or willful.
Our outrage over the priest who abuses kids is similar to that over a doctor who murders his/her patients. These are authority figures that many people place a lot of trust in and in some respects idolise.
When we realise that they're only humans - they have faults like anyone else - it can be a shock to the system and we can go over the top, which I woul ...[text shortened]... goes astray.
You don't need to be a priest to be an abuser.
And many priests do not abuse.
Understand the difference ?
Originally posted by Rajk999No, there are Doctor's who willfully use patients in experiements and then cover the tracks. The difference is that those Doctor's when discovered lose their job and gets prosecuted. Whereas a catholic priest apparently just gets prosecuted. 😕
What Nonsense ! Doctors can make mistakes or be negligent, therefore when a patient dies it is not premeditated or willful.
Understand the difference ?
Originally posted by stockenOr more likely just shipped off to another parish to abuse again.
No, there are Doctor's who willfully use patients in experiements and then cover the tracks. The difference is that those Doctor's when discovered lose their job and gets prosecuted. Whereas a catholic priest apparently just gets prosecuted. 😕