To clarify i was going by what has been told to the public. So i really dont know, but people make opinons on what information they are given. Some of the people at that meeting are the cause of the problem in the first place. How can people that caused this mess really fully fix it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they were not there as ones to fix the situation, but as ones to be fixed? Whatever the case, the whole situation stinks terribly. I hope that whatever was said/done repairs the problem and quickly.
<strong>The celibacy issue is another matter entirely and has nothing to do with this scandal. I don't know why it seems to be the first thing people bring up. </strong><hr></blockquote>Are you certain they're not related? Sure, the main issue in this scandal is probably the institutional reaction rather than the individuals acts of priests. But I'm not so sure that there's no relation between celibacy and the child abuse itself.
I don't know of any direct evidence that they are related, but I'm not as certain as everyone else here seems to be that they're not. Celibacy is a pretty tough requirement, so who knows what it does?
For example, celibacy may suppress natural urges that want to come out, and so come out in inappropriate ways. Celibacy also may influence the type of sexual abuse that priests engage in compared to the rest of the population - priests may be more likely to molest boys, whereas most sexual abuse victims in general are girls. Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men.
Again, who knows? But it doesn't seem so out of the question to me to think about a possible link between the two.
The problem of pedophilia of priest is (unfortunately) not specific of the catholic church hierarchy.
But the Catholic church was wrong in the managements of this deviants behaviors : displace the deviant people and not denounciate it to the justice. This way of acting is the root of the problem. The principle of the confessional's secret should not apply for this disguting acting, the future of our kids are more important in a moral point of vue than the confessional's secret. There was the same problem in France, aka a bishop who have just displaced a deviant priest. French justice has decided to sue the bishop. Church is not above justice. As a doctor there is a professional secret but it did not include pedophilia or violence against kids.
Concerning pedophilia, i will add that many deviants persons are married and have kids. You can find many of these people practicing sexual tourism in asia. This problem as nothing to do with the celiba which is an another problem.
For example, celibacy may suppress natural urges that want to come out, and so come out in inappropriate ways. Celibacy also may influence the type of sexual abuse that priests engage in compared to the rest of the population - priests may be more likely to molest boys, whereas most sexual abuse victims in general are girls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to be suggesting that celibacy might cause a heterosexual man to become a homosexually oriented pedophile - a crackpot idea if I ever heard one.
If we were talking about priests and nuns getting it on, then I'd agree with you about celibacy being relevant. But we're not and it's not.
<strong>You seem to be suggesting that celibacy might cause a heterosexual man to become a homosexually oriented pedophile - a crackpot idea if I ever heard one.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, you left out of your quote the last sentence of my paragraph: "Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men." If that's true, it may influence the type of victims sex-abusive priests select.
But that's a separate issue from whether celibacy increases the overall rate of child sexual abuse. You seem convinced it does not, but I'm not so sure. I believe that sex is a pretty basic human motivation, and we don't really know what a life-long stifling of that motivation could do.
Like I said, you have to be pretty f-ed up to begin with if celibacy leads to pedophilic tendencies. Celibacy perhaps exposes those tendencies, but it is not a cause IMO. I've known enough decent priests, nuns, whoever who are or have been celibate without this kind of thing happening. The fact that, despite the hype, far more Catholic clergypeople are not pedophilic nuts is proof enough.
A thread in which everyone can agree. err... no fun
Molester = bad. Even I get that. There's nothing especially interesting about that part of it.
However, the church's ability to shield clergy from prosecution has very interesting historical weight. Now my history is pretty (very) bad -- terrible phobia of dates and names -- but at many times in England and Europe, clergy (in the clerical sense: not really priests, but also scribes, monks, basically any literate person in the employ of a church) had access to trials under a different court than the rest of the population. This was a good thing, because offences that could get you killed in a secular court, might not bring much punishment in a clerical court. (I forget ALL the titles, sorry. You can check two sources though -- Any complete history of the English language, as this influenced the way legalease were imported into English, and any general History of Britain, as the back and forth Norman, Francien, Anglo-Saxon bickering swung this situation around a few times for obvious political reasons.
It has for some reason continued that churces and untill very recently 'Universities' in many western countries have a 'state-like' autonomy.
The university story is in Canada quite an interesting one. In 1975 (or is it 77, the dates and names phobia strikes again) a bunch of York University students got busted for producing Narcotics. They all got off because the police didn't have the proper authority to search/raid their operation. They didn't need the permission of a judge, they needed the permission of the dean! They didn't have that. No one would have really assumed that such archaisms were still respected. However, the defence lawyer did!
After that, things were ammended as far as universities go. I'm not sure if the Universities have to spell out their future co-operation with legal authorities (in a constitution or government bill) so that any law enforcement agencies who have legal approval have the tacit co-operation of the university by default. I don't know. I had a prof who was involved with this (now retired) Maybe I should e-mail him and find out?
Churches, however, continue to offer asylum. Here in Toronto a Chinese woman who was ordered deported 3 years ago, has remained holed-up in a church while relatives and community leaders petition for a new hearing.
It is a very interesting situation of deply rooted autonomous practice. As you'll note, the Church basically still has to agree to hand over priests. Even if those molesters are the worst bastards immaginable, they won't do this easily or quickly because the fear the precedent it sets -- not that crimes go punished, but who gets to do the punishing.
<strong>No, you left out of your quote the last sentence of my paragraph: "Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I left it out because that's a seperate issue from the idea you presented that celibacy might distort one's sexuality. It's well worth considering whether or not the priesthood attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men. But again, that doesn't seem very germane to the pedophilia issue unless you believe that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
<atheist rant>This just proves that this form of religion (that 'ol time religion...Catholic) is old. As old and decrepit as the Pope itself. When will we all learn that we all have to grow up and face reality? Face each other? Faith is within ourselves. Let's get real for a change.</atheist rant>
<strong>Forgive me (haha...), but I didn't see this topic listed anywhere else. If it is and I overlooked it, feel free to close this redundant thread.
What's the thoughts and opinions among the gang here, regarding all this nasty "priest molesting little boys" stuff we're hearing so much about lately?
I have some very strong opinions on it and am pretty disgusted/amazed that there seems to be this whole weird half-ass "debate" in the church.
I mean, did these Cardinals have to fly all the way to Rome and hear it from the Pope himself to figure out that diddling little kids isn't cool?
What other profession out there could you fondle and molest children and NOT be imediately fired, arrested, etc.? Could any of us here do this in OUR lives/jobs/neighborhoods?
But some prick in a frock puts his hands down an 8-year-old's Fruit of the Looms, and everyone just wants to look the other way, make excuses and shuffle him off to another unsuspecting community.
Cardinals Law, Mahoney and the others who assisted in covering up and simply moving pedophile priests from one area to another and not reporting them are all equally to blame here.
I'm not Catholic, but I don't think one HAS to be in order to see the evil and wrong here.
What does everyone think/feel about this subject and all that's going on right now?
Some of you, I just can't WAIT to read your drawn-out, pointy-headed handwringing and excuse-making...don't let me down now! </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the whole situation is absolutely hilarious. I hope the public sticks it to the cathlolic church just like those priests stuck it to those little boys...
I mean no disrespect to the victims of these terrible acts committed by these alleged purveyors of godly truth (wow try saying that with a straight face!).
Comments
<strong>
To clarify i was going by what has been told to the public. So i really dont know, but people make opinons on what information they are given. Some of the people at that meeting are the cause of the problem in the first place. How can people that caused this mess really fully fix it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe they were not there as ones to fix the situation, but as ones to be fixed? Whatever the case, the whole situation stinks terribly. I hope that whatever was said/done repairs the problem and quickly.
<strong>The celibacy issue is another matter entirely and has nothing to do with this scandal. I don't know why it seems to be the first thing people bring up.
I don't know of any direct evidence that they are related, but I'm not as certain as everyone else here seems to be that they're not. Celibacy is a pretty tough requirement, so who knows what it does?
For example, celibacy may suppress natural urges that want to come out, and so come out in inappropriate ways. Celibacy also may influence the type of sexual abuse that priests engage in compared to the rest of the population - priests may be more likely to molest boys, whereas most sexual abuse victims in general are girls. Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men.
Again, who knows? But it doesn't seem so out of the question to me to think about a possible link between the two.
But the Catholic church was wrong in the managements of this deviants behaviors : displace the deviant people and not denounciate it to the justice. This way of acting is the root of the problem. The principle of the confessional's secret should not apply for this disguting acting, the future of our kids are more important in a moral point of vue than the confessional's secret. There was the same problem in France, aka a bishop who have just displaced a deviant priest. French justice has decided to sue the bishop. Church is not above justice. As a doctor there is a professional secret but it did not include pedophilia or violence against kids.
Concerning pedophilia, i will add that many deviants persons are married and have kids. You can find many of these people practicing sexual tourism in asia. This problem as nothing to do with the celiba which is an another problem.
<strong>
For example, celibacy may suppress natural urges that want to come out, and so come out in inappropriate ways. Celibacy also may influence the type of sexual abuse that priests engage in compared to the rest of the population - priests may be more likely to molest boys, whereas most sexual abuse victims in general are girls.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You seem to be suggesting that celibacy might cause a heterosexual man to become a homosexually oriented pedophile - a crackpot idea if I ever heard one.
If we were talking about priests and nuns getting it on, then I'd agree with you about celibacy being relevant. But we're not and it's not.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>You seem to be suggesting that celibacy might cause a heterosexual man to become a homosexually oriented pedophile - a crackpot idea if I ever heard one.</strong><hr></blockquote>No, you left out of your quote the last sentence of my paragraph: "Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men." If that's true, it may influence the type of victims sex-abusive priests select.
But that's a separate issue from whether celibacy increases the overall rate of child sexual abuse. You seem convinced it does not, but I'm not so sure. I believe that sex is a pretty basic human motivation, and we don't really know what a life-long stifling of that motivation could do.
A thread in which everyone can agree. err... no fun
Molester = bad. Even I get that. There's nothing especially interesting about that part of it.
However, the church's ability to shield clergy from prosecution has very interesting historical weight. Now my history is pretty (very) bad -- terrible phobia of dates and names -- but at many times in England and Europe, clergy (in the clerical sense: not really priests, but also scribes, monks, basically any literate person in the employ of a church) had access to trials under a different court than the rest of the population. This was a good thing, because offences that could get you killed in a secular court, might not bring much punishment in a clerical court. (I forget ALL the titles, sorry. You can check two sources though -- Any complete history of the English language, as this influenced the way legalease were imported into English, and any general History of Britain, as the back and forth Norman, Francien, Anglo-Saxon bickering swung this situation around a few times for obvious political reasons.
It has for some reason continued that churces and untill very recently 'Universities' in many western countries have a 'state-like' autonomy.
The university story is in Canada quite an interesting one. In 1975 (or is it 77, the dates and names phobia strikes again) a bunch of York University students got busted for producing Narcotics. They all got off because the police didn't have the proper authority to search/raid their operation. They didn't need the permission of a judge, they needed the permission of the dean! They didn't have that. No one would have really assumed that such archaisms were still respected. However, the defence lawyer did!
After that, things were ammended as far as universities go. I'm not sure if the Universities have to spell out their future co-operation with legal authorities (in a constitution or government bill) so that any law enforcement agencies who have legal approval have the tacit co-operation of the university by default. I don't know. I had a prof who was involved with this (now retired) Maybe I should e-mail him and find out?
Churches, however, continue to offer asylum. Here in Toronto a Chinese woman who was ordered deported 3 years ago, has remained holed-up in a church while relatives and community leaders petition for a new hearing.
It is a very interesting situation of deply rooted autonomous practice. As you'll note, the Church basically still has to agree to hand over priests. Even if those molesters are the worst bastards immaginable, they won't do this easily or quickly because the fear the precedent it sets -- not that crimes go punished, but who gets to do the punishing.
<strong>No, you left out of your quote the last sentence of my paragraph: "Maybe preventing marriage attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I left it out because that's a seperate issue from the idea you presented that celibacy might distort one's sexuality. It's well worth considering whether or not the priesthood attracts a disproportionate number of homosexual men. But again, that doesn't seem very germane to the pedophilia issue unless you believe that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
BRussell, check your messages.
[ 04-25-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
<strong>Forgive me (haha...), but I didn't see this topic listed anywhere else. If it is and I overlooked it, feel free to close this redundant thread.
What's the thoughts and opinions among the gang here, regarding all this nasty "priest molesting little boys" stuff we're hearing so much about lately?
I have some very strong opinions on it and am pretty disgusted/amazed that there seems to be this whole weird half-ass "debate" in the church.
I mean, did these Cardinals have to fly all the way to Rome and hear it from the Pope himself to figure out that diddling little kids isn't cool?
What other profession out there could you fondle and molest children and NOT be imediately fired, arrested, etc.? Could any of us here do this in OUR lives/jobs/neighborhoods?
But some prick in a frock puts his hands down an 8-year-old's Fruit of the Looms, and everyone just wants to look the other way, make excuses and shuffle him off to another unsuspecting community.
Cardinals Law, Mahoney and the others who assisted in covering up and simply moving pedophile priests from one area to another and not reporting them are all equally to blame here.
I'm not Catholic, but I don't think one HAS to be in order to see the evil and wrong here.
What does everyone think/feel about this subject and all that's going on right now?
Some of you, I just can't WAIT to read your drawn-out, pointy-headed handwringing and excuse-making...don't let me down now!
I think the whole situation is absolutely hilarious. I hope the public sticks it to the cathlolic church just like those priests stuck it to those little boys...
I mean no disrespect to the victims of these terrible acts committed by these alleged purveyors of godly truth (wow try saying that with a straight face!).