PDA

View Full Version : The Pope Covered Up Pedophile Priests


Xantar
03-25-2010, 10:44 AM
Top Vatican officials — including the future Pope Benedict XVI — did not defrock a priest who molested as many as 200 deaf boys, even though several American bishops repeatedly warned them that failure to act on the matter could embarrass the church, according to church files newly unearthed as part of a lawsuit.

Source: New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html)

I remember having a conversation with Strangler about religion way back in 2004 or so. We were going through the definitions of "deist" and "theist" and "atheist" and so on when he casually dropped the line, "Catholic = corrupt."

I thought he was being pretty harsh at the time. Sadly, it seems I was too optimistic. I honestly don't know how the Catholic Church recovers from this or how regular ground-level Catholics who weren't involved in any of this can rebuild the institution.

manasecret
03-25-2010, 11:05 AM
The infallible pope, everyone. Oh, but this wasn't about Catholic teachings, so he's still infallible.

thatmariolover
03-25-2010, 11:37 AM
This has been a long time coming. Even late last year there was significant criticism pointed at the Pope for not intervening in Ireland when they specifically asked for help.

I don't think Catholicism is corrupt, so much as Catholic tendencies lead to corruption. It's unfortunate, but I think it may become necessary to do personality testing and background checks on new Priests. As much as you'd like to think they choose such a difficult path to bring religion to others, many choose it because it is an easy way to gain both prestige and access to victims.

I also think this would never have happened under Pope John Paul II. Benedict is exactly the sort of Pope the Catholic church doesn't need. He's completely set in his ways and has shown no ability to adapt the church to fit in the 21st century.

Professor S
03-25-2010, 11:50 AM
This is quite litrally a top-down problem, with no fault put to 99.9% of Catholics, but all falling on the church itself. The Catholic Church believes that it is not beholden to any secular laws of any nation where it teaches, and is only beholden to their own dogma. Quite literally, the church covers up these things because they don't feel it's anyone's business but their own.

Meanwhile, the church's civilian population must follow the laws of the nation where they live, AND live by Catholic dogma (to be considered a "good" Catholic.

This kind of separation of rule/double standard is bound to create such corruption and scandal.

manasecret
03-25-2010, 02:42 PM
Since I don't think anyone will argue the Catholic Church's case here, I'll bring up an argument I have read before. It comes from a letter written to Tulane's student-run newspaper, The Hullabaloo, in response to an article or editorial about one of the latest Catholic sexual abuse scandals of the time. (This was a few years ago.)

The crux of the argument was that the Catholic scandals are overblown, because the rate of Catholic priest molestations is similar to the rate of molestations by other regular men, such as grandfathers. What do you think?

Professor S
03-25-2010, 02:44 PM
Since I don't think anyone will argue the Catholic Church's case here, I'll bring up an argument I have read before. It comes from a letter written to Tulane's student-run newspaper, The Hullabaloo, in response to an article or editorial about one of the latest Catholic sexual abuse scandals of the time. (This was a few years ago.)

The crux of the argument was that the Catholic scandals are overblown, because the rate of Catholic priest molestations is similar to the rate of molestations by other regular men, such as grandfathers. What do you think?

The rate of molestation isn't the cause of the problem, its the fact that a trusted and presumably moral organization has gone to great lengths to cover it up and harbor felons.

Typhoid
03-25-2010, 03:00 PM
I honestly don't know how the Catholic Church recovers from this or how regular ground-level Catholics who weren't involved in any of this can rebuild the institution.

People should be smart enough to blame those involved, and not the religion as a whole.

I mean, it's an easy fix. All you have to do is not molest children. It's not splitting an atom or anything. It's just self-control that a select few people don't have.


This situation reminds me 100% of the South Park episode though. Good times.


Anyways, like I said - I don't think the "Catholic Faith" will have to recover from this. Not in the eyes of Catholics. In the eyes of everyone else, sure. But what do they matter to Catholics - they aren't part of Catholicism. Catholic parents need to not be so trusting of their priest just because he's a priest. People are still people, regardless of how close they want to be with God.

ts the fact that a trusted and presumably moral organization has gone to great lengths to cover it up and harbor felons.

100% agree.
The Pope should immediately be de-Poped.
But since he's the pope, and everything he does is considered the will of God, maybe God wanted him to harbour felons.
I'm clearly joking, for the record.

TheSlyMoogle
03-25-2010, 05:27 PM
This situation reminds me 100% of the South Park episode though. Good times.

Wait wait wait wait wait! You mean you all molest children?

LOL.

This is a sticky situation though. Dirty old priests.

Of course no one wants to protest this by leaving the catholic church, because being catholic is a sweet deal. Oh I fucked up, but I told my priest, now all is forgiven.

Vampyr
03-25-2010, 06:03 PM
Good old religion.

KillerGremlin
03-25-2010, 07:33 PM
How can you live with yourself if you're the priest doing these things? I mean, serious question. Either you're a pedophile or a believer, I cannot believe that some priests are both. If you are a believer and you're raping little boys, I can only imagine how terrified of death you must be.

The Germanator
03-25-2010, 08:34 PM
This is a sticky situation though.


That's what the Priests said.

Typhoid
03-25-2010, 09:16 PM
Good old religion.

Religion doesn't make people molest children. It would be ridiculous if that's even what you're insinuating.


How can you live with yourself if you're the priest doing these things?

Because I can confidently assume that the ones who molest children probably wanted to be a priest just for the sole fact they are attracted to little boys - and what better way to get close to them and gain the trust of the family other than being a priest.

Vampyr
03-25-2010, 11:00 PM
Religion doesn't make people molest children. It would be ridiculous if that's even what you're insinuating.


No, that's not what I'm insinuating. I'm just saying it's one more of a multitude of reasons why we would be better off without religion.

Professor S
03-25-2010, 11:04 PM
No, that's not what I'm insinuating.

Ok...

I'm just saying it's one more of a multitude of reasons why we would be better off without religion.

How does that statement NOT insinuate that religion causes child molestation?

Vampyr
03-26-2010, 12:35 AM
Ok...



How does that statement NOT insinuate that religion causes child molestation?

Without religion you wouldn't have had these people in this situation. You wouldn't have people being tricked into thinking that living a celibate life is somehow moral, and you wouldn't have people trusting their kids to some stranger who has no legitimate reason to be trusted with them - other than that they are supposedly close to some invisible guy in the sky.

Religion didn't make them molest children - but it presented a scenario which shouldn't exist: child molesters who are deemed trustworthy because they believe in something non-existent (or at least say that they do), and a huge, powerful organization which is also founded on something non-existent that protects them.

Typhoid
03-26-2010, 01:07 AM
No, that's not what I'm insinuating. I'm just saying it's one more of a multitude of reasons why we would be better off without religion.

These people would molest children regardless of religion.
That's like blaming Marilyn Manson's music (or even music in general) for the Columbine shootings.

TheGame
03-26-2010, 02:30 AM
These people would molest children regardless of religion.
That's like blaming Marilyn Manson's music (or even music in general) for the Columbine shootings.

Even though I don't agree with Vamp.. I'd say his example is more like blaming public/private schooling for the shootings at columbine.

If there were no public schools, there would be no place for these kids to do such an insane act of terror.. And if there was no religion, there'd be no pedophile priests that people trust their kids with.

So with that said... I don't agree with Vamp. lol

Typhoid
03-26-2010, 02:36 AM
I'd say his example is more like blaming public/private schooling for the shootings at columbine.

The reason I said what I said is because people did blame Marilyn Manson's music for the shootings at Columbine.

But yes, yours is much more apt than mine is.

Professor S
03-26-2010, 08:20 AM
Without religion you wouldn't have had these people in this situation. You wouldn't have people being tricked into thinking that living a celibate life is somehow moral, and you wouldn't have people trusting their kids to some stranger who has no legitimate reason to be trusted with them - other than that they are supposedly close to some invisible guy in the sky.

Religion didn't make them molest children - but it presented a scenario which shouldn't exist: child molesters who are deemed trustworthy because they believe in something non-existent (or at least say that they do), and a huge, powerful organization which is also founded on something non-existent that protects them.

Good points. Your criticisms were more aimed at the organization of religion rather than the belief structure, and that is surely a valid argument.

Vampyr
03-26-2010, 11:38 AM
These people would molest children regardless of religion.
That's like blaming Marilyn Manson's music (or even music in general) for the Columbine shootings.

Yes, they probably would, but a huge difference is that one of the most powerful organizations in the world wouldn't be helping to cover up for them, nor would they have such a ready supply of victims being practically handed to them.

Even though I don't agree with Vamp.. I'd say his example is more like blaming public/private schooling for the shootings at columbine.

If there were no public schools, there would be no place for these kids to do such an insane act of terror.. And if there was no religion, there'd be no pedophile priests that people trust their kids with.

So with that said... I don't agree with Vamp. lol

I wouldn't really carry it that far - there is risk associated with everything. I think the world benefits from having public schools far more than it would without them - even though it provides a venue for crazy people to hurt others. Not only that, but officials have begun to realize the dangers of having a lot of helpless kids and teenagers in a centralized location with other possibly mental and easily influenced children. The result is better security, metal detectors, etc.

Organized religion, on the other hand, I don't see how the world has benefited from it more than it has suffered.

I don't think religion is innately evil - if I did I would have very few friends and hate my parents. But for whatever reason people are inspired to organize around things they find important, so it happens with religion as well. I was talking to a friend at work about it the other day - he's a very religious person, but he hasn't been to church once in 2010, and he was talking about how he's happier than he has been in a very long time.

manasecret
03-26-2010, 11:44 AM
I wish more things had the power to draw people together like religion does, but things that don't rely on faith and belief.

As in, I see good in the video game culture and specifically what Penny Arcade has done with PAX and Child's Play.

I see good in Wikipedia, Firefox, and other such coming together of people for a common good.

But these in the end don't have the same numbers that religion draw.

Xantar
03-26-2010, 01:08 PM
So here's a question for you: would this have happened if Catholic priests didn't have to be male and celibate? What if priests were allowed to marry and have families? What if some of them were women? If Cardinal Ratzinger had been a father, do you think he could have condoned the cover up of child rapists?

Bond
03-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Do we not have any Catholics here? I don't formally consider myself Catholic, but I have been strongly influenced by and benefited from the Catholic / Jesuit tradition of education and culture. I'll post my thoughts from inside and outside the Catholic church when I arrive home.

thatmariolover
03-26-2010, 01:55 PM
So here's a question for you: would this have happened if Catholic priests didn't have to be male and celibate? What if priests were allowed to marry and have families? What if some of them were women? If Cardinal Ratzinger had been a father, do you think he could have condoned the cover up of child rapists?

No, I don't think it would have happened if Catholic Priests didn't have to be celibate men. But that's part of a much bigger problem. Would it have happened if Catholicism wasn't so stagnant? So utterly and completely incapable of changing with the times? I mean, the Catholic church practically ignores the outside world entirely, It's almost entirely turned inward; a circle of priests wearing mirror's on their backs, reflecting the world back at itself and never looking at it for what it really is.

If a widely accepted scientific belief is suddenly called into question, do we ignore it or cover it up? No, we adapt or find a new theory that fits better. But in the church, if something happens that might cause doubt it's usually covered up or glossed over.

Do we not have any Catholics here? I don't formally consider myself Catholic, but I have been strongly influenced by and benefited from the Catholic / Jesuit tradition of education and culture. I'll post my thoughts from inside and outside the Catholic church when I arrive home.

I was baptized Catholic and attended a Catholic church fairly regularly until I was 9 or 10. But that was before I thought for myself a lot and I stopped going around the time that I did. I eventually tried Lutheranism with the ELCA and was confirmed Lutheran, but it was more because the church was next door and we had an absolutely stellar Pastor that was willing to openly discuss theology and its various merits/flaws with me.

manasecret
03-26-2010, 02:12 PM
I went to Catholic school all my life until university, and went to Saint Thomas High School in Houston, established by the Basilian Fathers in 1900. We had some odd rivalry with the other all-guys Catholic high school in Houston, Strake Jesuit. (Dear Bond: Damn Jebbies!)

But I don't ever remember talking about the sex scandals much in high school. Maybe the scandals weren't yet blown wide open by 2002? I've always wondered since then if any of the priest teachers I had committed any sexual abuse... there's at least one I wouldn't be surprised at all if he had. He was just... creepy sometimes.

Typhoid
03-26-2010, 03:06 PM
First off, Bond - I'm not personally Catholic, but a large section of my family is, and my mom was raised it.

Now, just something I want to touch on:


Organized religion, on the other hand, I don't see how the world has benefited from it more than it has suffered.

That's because Religion doesn't exist to help the masses as a whole. It exists to help a person. Religion is a great thing.

Do priests molest kids? Yes. Is it wrong? 100% undoubtedly sickening.
Is it terrible that the Pope covered it up? Again - completely. However if you were the Pope, would you want to tarnish your entire religion, or would you want to do what you can to try and save face. Obviously it's wrong, and it didn't work out in the end. But I can see where the Pope was coming from. Just because he covered it up doesn't mean he's defending the people, or their actions; he's defending the religion.

This is from a post I made on another forum to do with a different topic, but the thread was on religion:

"Fathers shouldn't beat their children, and people shouldn't kill kittens.
Shit happens.
Religion isn't to blame.
People who let various things control their entire emotions are to blame.
If those people who 'hardcore' follow religion, were into something else - the world would be a shittier place.
Are there Zealots and Extremists? You bet.
But there are fucking marijuana extremists who riot in order to get it legalized.
There are people rioting and killing people for next to no reason.
So to say most of it rests solely on religion is fucked up.
Religions are old, and outdated. Completely.
They help people who need help, and they give hate to people who need hate.
But people are fucked up, and will do fucked up things. "

Now obviously I know that doesn't pertain to child molestation. I wasn't posting that as a defense to it, I was posting that as a defense to the existence of religion as a whole.


Edit:

I do think priests should be able to marry and have families. We're not meant to be celibate. Our entire purpose is procreation. Hell, even the Bible says that. Give everyone the freedom to procreate with human females of near the same age, and move on.

Xantar
03-26-2010, 04:13 PM
However if you were the Pope, would you want to tarnish your entire religion, or would you want to do what you can to try and save face. Obviously it's wrong, and it didn't work out in the end. But I can see where the Pope was coming from. Just because he covered it up doesn't mean he's defending the people, or their actions; he's defending the religion.


I would suggest that he's not defending a religion in that case. He's just defending a human institution, and it would be a mistake to confuse the institution of the Catholic Church with the Catholic faith.


I do think priests should be able to marry and have families. We're not meant to be celibate. Our entire purpose is procreation. Hell, even the Bible says that. Give everyone the freedom to procreate with human females of near the same age, and move on.

Everyone? Even human females? Duuuuuuuuuude...if we gave human females the freedom to procreate with human females, the world would become a very interesting place very quickly.

BlueFire
03-26-2010, 04:53 PM
Do we not have any Catholics here? I don't formally consider myself Catholic, but I have been strongly influenced by and benefited from the Catholic / Jesuit tradition of education and culture. I'll post my thoughts from inside and outside the Catholic church when I arrive home.

I was raised Catholic but I have rejected it for years. I think the institution is silly and the pedophile cases growing by the day.. well, that's quite sickening.

thatmariolover
03-26-2010, 05:27 PM
Everyone? Even human females? Duuuuuuuuuude...if we gave human females the freedom to procreate with human females, the world would become a very interesting place very quickly.

Change you can believe in. amirite?

Seriously, though, I have a couple girl friends that are don't lean to the bisexual end of the spectrum that would love to have each others children if it were possible.

magus113
03-26-2010, 06:00 PM
I was raised Catholic too but that definitely started getting looked over in the high school years. If I felt it at all, it was kinda gone. I haven't been to church in forever unless it was a funeral and I just...

I dunno. Organized religion is a joke most of the time.

thatmariolover
04-02-2010, 04:25 PM
And now the Vatican suggests that the Pope has immunity because he's head of state. He can't even be called to testify. Talk about cowardly.

Typhoid
04-02-2010, 06:16 PM
I honestly wouldn't call a man who knows the media would tear him 18 new assholes and then purposely fuck each one of them with a microphone 'cowardly'.

Vampyr
04-03-2010, 01:29 AM
I honestly wouldn't call a man who knows the media would tear him 18 new assholes and then purposely fuck each one of them with a microphone 'cowardly'.

Pretty sure that will be happening regardless.

TheSlyMoogle
04-03-2010, 08:34 AM
I think you should all go check out the newest episode of south park :D

It's entitled "Medicinal Fried Chicken"

Angrist
04-07-2010, 11:19 AM
I like how the Pope admit that they have inadequate methods of selecting candidates for priesthood. :)

I read an article on why people still stay Catholic. Many of them are 100% inactive, but they're too lazy to withdraw themselves. That seems to be a bit of a hassle.

Typhoid
04-07-2010, 03:24 PM
It's hard to get out of any religion.

People need to stop singling out Catholicism just because they might not like/agree with it's views.

Professor S
04-07-2010, 03:30 PM
It's hard to get out of any religion.

People need to stop singling out Catholicism just because they might not like/agree with it's views.

I think people are singling out Catholicism because that is the religion whose priests are &%$#ing little boys, but I could be wrong. /joke

To me, the problem lies with a horribly outdated celibacy mandate. The relatively high rate of perversion is because many Priests are not joining because they want to sacrifice their libido for God, they are joining because they believe it will cure them of their sometimes perverse compulsions. The trouble is this cure puts them in a position of trust, and surrounds them with what tempts them.

Abolish the celibacy mandate, and I believe the rate of perversion would come down to normal levels and not be nearly as pronounced because they will attract more devotees.

Besides, celibacy is not mandated anywhere but in Catholic dogma. Nothing in the bible demands it.

Typhoid
04-07-2010, 03:42 PM
I think people are singling out Catholicism because that is the religion whose priests are &%$#ing little boys, but I could be wrong. /joke

I'm well aware that you're joking, but it seems absurd to think only Catholic priests are the ones committing these crimes. There is no way that I'll believe no Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons or even Amish are doing it. It's just easiest for someone who wants to be close to little boys to fake believing in God to become a priest.


While I do, and don't agree with you on the celibacy thing.
I don't think it's priests who are so in the want for sexual connection that they go to rape little boys. Because A) If they're actual priests and believe in God, there is no way they'd think of doing that and B) That's a large assumption to make. If me or you are celibate, I don't think we'd resort to little boys.


Like I said, I think it all basically lies with the fact the Catholic church has a really weak way of scanning candidates for priests.

It's like if banks didn't have a vault, and left one person in charge of all the money. Now, upstanding citizens like me or you might not steal the money because we have fear of the law. But what would be stopping someone who wanted the job for the sole desire of taking money from the bank, if they never stop to think of repercussions.

Xantar
04-07-2010, 04:52 PM
I'm well aware that you're joking, but it seems absurd to think only Catholic priests are the ones committing these crimes. There is no way that I'll believe no Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons or even Amish are doing it. It's just easiest for someone who wants to be close to little boys to fake believing in God to become a priest.

Show me the Jewish rabbi who was raping or molesting children and then had his crimes covered up by the very highest authority in th Jewish religion itself.

Typhoid
04-07-2010, 04:55 PM
Show me the Jewish rabbi who was raping or molesting children and then had his crimes covered up by the very highest authority in th Jewish religion itself.

You're right.
Only Catholics molest children.
How crazy I was to ever think otherwise.
Thank you, oh wise Xantar, master of trying to start arguments over the internet.
I'm ever indebted to your giant internet cock.

KillerGremlin
04-07-2010, 05:39 PM
I think the Catholic culture is run like some exclusive fraternity or gang or secret society. It's a bit of a Chicken/Egg scenario for me though, I'm not sure what came first: being a priest, or wanting to put your hoo-ha in little boy's bums.

In other words I'm not entirely convinced that Celibacy is the exact problem, although it may be a contributor. I'm not convinced because like all "vows/commandments/rules" I'm sure it is easily and often broken.

KillerGremlin
04-07-2010, 05:43 PM
Show me the Jewish rabbi who was raping or molesting children and then had his crimes covered up by the very highest authority in th Jewish religion itself.

You don't hear about it because after WWII the Jews learned to keep their mouth's shut. :lolz:

I kid...I kid....I have nothing against Jews and I think you have a valid point.

The Germanator
04-07-2010, 05:50 PM
You're right.
Only Catholics molest children.
How crazy I was to ever think otherwise.
Thank you, oh wise Xantar, master of trying to start arguments over the internet.
I'm ever indebted to your giant internet cock.

Where did he ever say it was only Catholics that molested children? He didn't. He just asked if there's been well publicized case of a rabbi molesting HUNDREDS of children and having the highest authority of the Jewish religion cover it up, and there probably hasn't been. The Catholic church seems to be alone on that front, no matter how much you want to defend it.

Xantar
04-07-2010, 05:55 PM
You're right.
Only Catholics molest children.
How crazy I was to ever think otherwise.
Thank you, oh wise Xantar, master of trying to start arguments over the internet.
I'm ever indebted to your giant internet cock.

Ok, let's try this one more time:

I asked "Show me the Jewish rabbi who was raping or molesting children and then had his crimes covered up by the very highest authority in the Jewish religion itself." That second part is the key there. I'm not saying only Catholics molest children, and you will not be able to find a quote from me saying anything resembling that statement. As you would know if you actually read this thread, we're talking about the cover up. The actual rape is bad enough, but things get especially repulsive when supposedly moral people in positions of authority conspire to lie and deceive the people they are supposedly ministering to in order to protect people who probably aren't worth protecting. And speaking only for myself, maybe I'm naive but I was shocked to find that the corruption extended all the way up to the Pope himself.

Now if you still don't get it, ask Strangler to explain it to you. His profound cynicism about Catholicism has (unfortunately) allowed him to understand things more accurately than I have.

KillerGremlin
04-07-2010, 06:07 PM
I think people are singling out Catholicism because that is the religion whose priests are &%$#ing little boys, but I could be wrong. /joke

To me, the problem lies with a horribly outdated celibacy mandate. The relatively high rate of perversion is because many Priests are not joining because they want to sacrifice their libido for God, they are joining because they believe it will cure them of their sometimes perverse compulsions. The trouble is this cure puts them in a position of trust, and surrounds them with what tempts them.

Abolish the celibacy mandate, and I believe the rate of perversion would come down to normal levels and not be nearly as pronounced because they will attract more devotees.

Besides, celibacy is not mandated anywhere but in Catholic dogma. Nothing in the bible demands it.

I think the rates of child molestation probably would go down....

I have 2 commentaries I won't delve deeply into, but here they are:

1) I strongly believe there is a lot of undocumented homosexuality that goes on within the Priesthood (and within the Nun thing). And maybe I'm way off.

2) This may sound dick-ish but I always question why people want to become Clergy. All I ever hear are the canned responses, "I want to spread the word of God," or, "God showed me this path," and both response lack motives or broader behavioral/social considerations.

So yeah. I think there is a lot going on here and the simple solution is stricter screening for priests, harder punishments, and less immunity.

Or if you take a vow of Celibacy let's just chop off their man parts! /I kid I kid...again....

TheGame
04-07-2010, 06:47 PM
@Xantar: Maybe other religions are better at covering it up? I don't think many other religions have an equivelant to the pope... and I don't see it making national news every day that any other religion's 'leaders' are making an active effort to sell out each and every person who is in a high position molesting children.

Men kill, men cheat on their wives, men lie, men steal, men rape, men become preists, men become pastors, men take high positions in any given religion's structure... Just because they're preists, doesn't make them exempt from being human.

With that said, I'm sure that there's plenty of other religions that have perverted people in positions of power... either by their own standards, ot by the standards set in by law. And I'm sure there's plenty of stories about it.

So... to answer your 'point' about how the Catholic church seems to be the only corrupt one...

Here's what I think the real issue is.. The religion has too large of a power stucture, and they became too large of a group among western/free nations. They managed to make themselves into political tools, and in the effort to appear "perfect" they decided to go the route of privacy whenever something happened that would make the church look bad. (Much like many do in politics)

So when someone would report to the Pope that a guy was raping children, he thought that banning this person from the church or making them answer to the law would actually make the church look bad.. so he decided to cover it up instead. And as most political figures find out.. trying to cover things up usually ends up hurting your cause more in the end once the truth comes out.

The celibacy thing is irrelevant in my opinion.. The problem is that it's a large political secret society that doesn't want to answer to anyone, and wants to appear to be "perfect".

Xantar
04-07-2010, 07:39 PM
Game, I think you're contradicting yourself a little bit. As you pointed out, at least part of the problem here is that the Catholic Church has a huge (international) power structure. And that's also the reason why it's better at covering up scandals than any other religion. In my own Buddhist practice, if the monk that my family works with abuses children, no elder monk will come by to hide him away in a monastery or swap him out with another monk because there is no elder monk at all. I'm not not going to claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of religions, but of the ones I know of, none has a central command authority whom everybody is supposed to answer to. Religious practice is generally very local.

If you look through the news, you can actually find plenty of cases of priests or monks of various religions being caught going to strip clubs, driving while drunk, having affairs and all kinds of other things. I repeat: they are caught. Because there is nobody to hide them away. And when something like that happens, it's considered notable but not a huge scandal because there has been no conspiracy to cover up the crime.

TheGame
04-07-2010, 08:13 PM
Game, I think you're contradicting yourself a little bit. As you pointed out, at least part of the problem here is that the Catholic Church has a huge (international) power structure. And that's also the reason why it's better at covering up scandals than any other religion. In my own Buddhist practice, if the monk that my family works with abuses children, no elder monk will come by to hide him away in a monastery or swap him out with another monk because there is no elder monk at all. I'm not not going to claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of religions, but of the ones I know of, none has a central command authority whom everybody is supposed to answer to. Religious practice is generally very local.

If you look through the news, you can actually find plenty of cases of priests or monks of various religions being caught going to strip clubs, driving while drunk, having affairs and all kinds of other things. I repeat: they are caught. Because there is nobody to hide them away. And when something like that happens, it's considered notable but not a huge scandal because there has been no conspiracy to cover up the crime.

I understand these facts, and I don't really disagree with you.. I guess the point I was trying to make is that what's wrong with the religion isn't that it gives the priests the incentive to rape the little boys... the problem is that they're trying to uphold some impossible to reach reputation of being "perfect" by hiding the fact that there is immorality within their church.

The divide here seems to be that people believe the religion gives the priests the incentive to molest children because of celibacy, and because of the position of unquestioned power they hold over the children. I believe that the problem is that they're trying to hide the immorality opposed to addressing it with real punishment for political reasons... because god forbid there be a story about the Pope admitting to making a mistake and removing a preist from their position of power.

Maybe I should do a poll... if you were forced to be celibate and your only option for sex was 10-12 year old boys, would you do it? Pretty sure everyone would vote no.

Xantar
04-07-2010, 08:37 PM
The divide here seems to be that people believe the religion gives the priests the incentive to molest children because of celibacy, and because of the position of unquestioned power they hold over the children.

At the very least, that's not what I'm saying. What I suggested earlier is that if the Cardinals had been fathers, they would not have been able to look the other way in cases of pedophilia. Never mind how bad it makes the Church look. Having children changes you, and if you have a bunch of old virgins gathered in a room disconnected from every day life, they are going to come to very different decisions about what to do with scandals like these compared with men (and women) who have families.

TheGame
04-07-2010, 09:15 PM
At the very least, that's not what I'm saying. What I suggested earlier is that if the Cardinals had been fathers, they would not have been able to look the other way in cases of pedophilia. Never mind how bad it makes the Church look. Having children changes you, and if you have a bunch of old virgins gathered in a room disconnected from every day life, they are going to come to very different decisions about what to do with scandals like these compared with men (and women) who have families.

That's true, but when you say that, it implies that people with families and who aren't disconnected from every day life like preists do not molest children... but they still do. And I'm sure there are plenty of preists (if not the VAST majority) who are old virgins and who are disconnected who have never molested a child.

Children will get molested no matter what, regardless of environment..

The incentive to keep it under wraps for political/reputation reasons is the real problem. That's why they turn the other way.. Not because they're freaks who are disconnected from reality, and somehow rationalized why their brothers are touching on little kids.

Xantar
04-07-2010, 09:44 PM
That's true, but when you say that, it implies that people with families and who aren't disconnected from every day life like preists do not molest children...

No. I'm saying people with families who aren't disconnected from every day life do not cover up pedophiles. Or at least they are much less likely to do so over the course of a hundred years. Come on, Game. I know you can follow this.

TheGame
04-07-2010, 10:11 PM
No. I'm saying people with families who aren't disconnected from every day life do not cover up pedophiles. Or at least they are much less likely to do so over the course of a hundred years. Come on, Game. I know you can follow this.

Once again, the problem is you're making large generalizations. Yes, normal families do cover up pedophiles. There are MANY stories out there about dads/step-dads molesting children, and the mother knowing and doing nothing about it.

Xantar
04-07-2010, 11:10 PM
Once again, the problem is you're making large generalizations. Yes, normal families do cover up pedophiles. There are MANY stories out there about dads/step-dads molesting children, and the mother knowing and doing nothing about it.

Look, instead of going back over everything step by baby step so that you get what I'm saying, let's just do this:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict) was assigned the task of covering up pedophile priests, moving them to other jurisdictions, hiding evidence and so on. To do this, he had to think that it was ok for little boys to be traumatized for life with no possibility of justice.

Now, would he have been more likely to do this if he was a father or less likely? I know it's still possible he would have done it, but my question is do you think that makes him more likely or less likely?

Now consider that there are hundreds of Cardinals in the Catholic church. So go through each of them and ask the same question: is that man more or less likely to stay silent about pedophile priests if he is himself the father of children? Remember that all it takes is for a few of them to blow the whistle on the church.

I'm not saying that all fathers are saints. I'm saying that if Catholic priests had all been family men, they would have been less likely to try to hide pedophiles from justice. Yes, it's a generalization. That's why I use words like "more likely" or "less likely" instead of "will."

Professor S
04-07-2010, 11:47 PM
Just to clarify MY opinion on this...

I don't think that the Cath Chirch incentivizes or recruits molesters. What I said was that the priesthood is attractive to people with sexual compulsions that are beyond the norm exactly because of celibacy and the promise of handing one's sexuality over to God.

They view it as a means to cure themselves of these desires that they hate and keep secret, but in the end many fail (many may succeed, but we don't hear about them). This is why I think we hear about so many instances of molestation in the Cath Church as opposed to other faiths.

They want to be good and godly, but in the end perhaps they are setting themselves up for failure.

TheGame
04-08-2010, 12:30 AM
I'm not saying that all fathers are saints. I'm saying that if Catholic priests had all been family men, they would have been less likely to try to hide pedophiles from justice. Yes, it's a generalization. That's why I use words like "more likely" or "less likely" instead of "will."

I don't know if it is more or less likely... has a study been done on that?

I'm kidding by the way.. Though I don't think him having a family would have solved the problem, this is a top down problem caused by them chosing to keep immoral action secret opposed to openly punishing people for it.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict) was assigned the task of covering up pedophile priests, moving them to other jurisdictions, hiding evidence and so on. To do this, he had to think that it was ok for little boys to be traumatized for life with no possibility of justice.

I that he could have thought that way, but somehow I don't think he's that sick...I think that he probably thought that allowing that information to get out would do more to hurt the catholic church then it would to help their cause. Just because you're the one who hides the evidence doesn't mean you're that you agree with the crime. Some people just simply feel that letting things get out on the table, even if it's the right thing to do, can hurt their cause more then it can help it.

I'm sure the priests were slaped on the wrist, in a very secret way.. but they weren't about to let someone else handle it.

Just like the whole torture situation in the US. They didn't want to release certain pictures. certain information, and did not want to prosecute the people who gave the orders. Is that because they agree with the crime? No.. It's because some of those pictures, and some of that information can destroy america's reputation and anger our enemies/allies further, even if we do the right thing and put the people who allowed it in jail.

That's just how I see it.. yes little things could change up how much the molestation occurs, but the thing that needs to change the most is how they handle people who commit the crimes. Because as I pointed out a few times, the crimes will still happen no matter what incentive structure surrounds a person.

manasecret
04-08-2010, 10:51 AM
There was a report on NPR maybe a year ago about Jewish rabbis molesting boys in some Jewish communal bathes I think in New York. -- Found it:

Abuse Scandal Plagues Hasidic Jews In Brooklyn (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99913807)

"See the Hebrew sign?" he says, pointing. "You go downstairs, and that's where the mikvah is."

The mikvah is a bathhouse usually used by women for ritual cleansing. But in some Hasidic communities, like this one, fathers bring their young sons on Friday afternoons before Shabbat begins. Twenty-one years ago, when he was 7, Diangelo recalls going to the mikvah with his father to find the place packed with naked men and boys.

"And I was in the tub, and I had my back turned, and somebody raped me while I was in the water," he says. He takes a shaky breath. "And I didn't know what happened. I couldn't make sense of it, really."

...

"He motioned for me to get on his lap, and as soon as I got on the chair, he would swivel the chair from right to left, continuously," Engelman says. "Then he would start touching me while talking to me. He would start at my shoulders and work his way down to my genitals."

Engelman says this occurred twice a week for two months. He told no one for more than a decade. Reichman was, after all, a revered rabbi. Four years ago, he told his parents. And a year ago, when he heard that Reichman had allegedly abused several other boys, they confronted Reichman. When the school heard about it, they gave the rabbi a polygraph.

"He failed miserably," Engelman says. "So they told me, 'This guy is gone. This guy has to go.' "

But a few weeks later, a religious leader from the school approached Engelman's mother, Pearl. He posed an astonishing question: On a scale of 1 to 10, how bad was the molestation?

She was speechless. Then she says, the man continued, " 'We found out there was no skin-to-skin contact, that it was through clothing.' So he's telling me, 'On a scale of 1 to 10, this was maybe a 2 or a 3, so what's the big fuss?' "

The school hired Reichman back. That was in July 2008 — one week after Joel Engelmen turned 23 and could no longer bring a criminal or civil case against the rabbi.

...

"If you're a pedophile, the best place for you to come to are some of the Jewish communities," he says. "Why? Because you can be a pedophile and no one's going to do anything. Even if they catch you, you'll get away with it."
Abuse and cover-up by the Hasidic Jewish community. It's amazing what power does to control people.

Typhoid
04-08-2010, 07:26 PM
Hey, look at that.

Vampyr
04-08-2010, 07:30 PM
Good old religion. ;)

Typhoid
04-08-2010, 07:32 PM
Good old religion. ;)


Religion: Creatin' pedophiles since the dawn of time.


The Pagans had it right.
No single God, no desire for molestation.

Xantar
04-08-2010, 07:45 PM
Hey, look at that.

Well, ya know, if you had just given me the story that manasecret just posted, then that would have been the end of it. But I understand it's easier to make fun of my penis size than it is to actually read my question. It's all good.

Anyway, not asking rhetorically and really looking to be enlightened: who is the highest authority of Hassidic Jews? The article says that Hassidism is broken up into a bunch of small groups spread around the world, but I don't know if each of those is considered autonomous or if they all answer to some (human) authority.

Typhoid
04-08-2010, 10:33 PM
It's all good.


I'm glad we agree.

manasecret
04-09-2010, 10:42 AM
Well, ya know, if you had just given me the story that manasecret just posted, then that would have been the end of it. But I understand it's easier to make fun of my penis size than it is to actually read my question. It's all good.

Anyway, not asking rhetorically and really looking to be enlightened: who is the highest authority of Hassidic Jews? The article says that Hassidism is broken up into a bunch of small groups spread around the world, but I don't know if each of those is considered autonomous or if they all answer to some (human) authority.

Good question, but sorry I can't answer it, I don't know much about them and their power structures. On that note, others here mentioned this, but how many religions out there have a power structure that goes as high up as the pope? I reckon just a handful.

So I don't know if this story of Hasidic Jews meets your criterion for being like the Pope covering things up, but it is quite similar with high-ups getting caught and then the organization tending to cover it up.

But really, I have to point out again -- it's like a South Park episode: "So, on a scale of 1 to 10 -- how bad was the touching of your son's penis by the rabbi? I mean, there was no up and down motion, right? Just some side to side motion, maybe a little tongue. So, I mean, come on -- 2... 3?"

KillerGremlin
04-09-2010, 03:11 PM
I dunno how I'd feel about a priest giving me a blowjob. I'd probably feel like this:

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/G1bIqwnRVr8&hl=en_US&fs=1&start=295"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/G1bIqwnRVr8&hl=en_US&fs=1&start=295" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

manasecret
04-29-2010, 04:17 PM
Did anyone know that the then-future pope Joseph Ratzinger was being sued in a Houston federal court some years ago for international conspiracy to obstruct justice? And that he was then elected pope just so he could get diplomatic immunity as head-of-state?

That's what Daniel Shea, the man behind the suit, believes, and I think I believe.

The Man Who Sued the Pope (http://www.houstonpress.com/2010-04-22/news/the-man-who-sued-the-pope/)


According to Shea, the cardinals elected Ratzinger Pope to give him the immunity that would enable him to avoid answering any questions concerning his knowledge about and handling of sex abuse cases in Houston's St. Francis De Sales church in the mid-1990s.

In fact, Shea believes that what he started with the lawsuit may eventually result in the destruction of the entire Roman Catholic Church.

Dan Shea, a former Catholic deacon, has come a long way from the seminary. Whether that's a long way up or a long way down depends on where today's Catholic Church stands in your eyes. In the last five years, Shea has cracked wise about the Pope being gay and a drag queen in front of the Italian Parliament. He got a bishop to declare in open court that it was the church's position that minor children were accomplices in their own molestation. He looked another bishop dead in the eye and told him to kiss his ass.

So it's safe to say, he evokes strong emotions while expressing his beliefs.In Doe et al v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Galveston-Houston et al, Shea and Khan Merritt allege that a letter then-Cardinal Ratzinger sent to every Catholic bishop on May 18, 2001, constituted an international conspiracy to obstruct justice. This official Vatican document Ratzinger penned in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealt with official church procedure in dealing with clerical sex abuse cases.

Not only did this letter contain the cardinal's current thinking on the subject, it also cited in a footnote a top-secret 1962 Vatican document Shea would eventually flush out.

This 48-year-old document, informally known as Crimen Sollicitationis, considered a smoking gun in some quarters, contains written orders from the Vatican laying bare a system for protecting child molesters. To Shea, Crimen is more than a smoking gun, it is "a nuclear bomb."Joseph Ratzinger needs to resign. He's poisoning the Catholic Church from within.

Professor S
04-29-2010, 07:21 PM
In fairness, these claims are coming from the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Of course he's going to assume the worst. Also, while I do believe that Ratzinger covered up the scandal, I also believe the many accounts that he has worked to reform the situation from the inside. Does that make the cover-up better? No. But understanding how the mind of the Vatican works, I'm not surprised by their actions.

What are the laws of a nation compared to the laws of God and His retribution/absolution? The rulings of a government court system mean nothing to them.

manasecret
05-05-2010, 04:39 PM
In fairness, these claims are coming from the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Of course he's going to assume the worst. Also, while I do believe that Ratzinger covered up the scandal, I also believe the many accounts that he has worked to reform the situation from the inside. Does that make the cover-up better? No. But understanding how the mind of the Vatican works, I'm not surprised by their actions.

What are the laws of a nation compared to the laws of God and His retribution/absolution? The rulings of a government court system mean nothing to them.

The rulings of a government court system does mean something to them, otherwise there would be no need for a cover-up.

While certainly the plaintiff, Daniel Shea is going to assume the worst, you have to admit it's a good conspiracy theory with some hard evidence pointing to the conclusion that he was elected Pope to give him diplomatic immunity.

But, as far as the two letters that the article references -- Ratzinger's letter to all Catholic bishops from May 18, 2001, and the 48-year-old document Crimen Sollicitationis it cites in its footnotes -- those are hard facts. I'd like to read them in full myself (I believe both are in Latin, so it makes it slightly more difficult, having to rely on someone's translation), but if they're at all what the article makes them sound like, it sure sounds like a cover-up to me, and across international borders, which I'm guessing makes it an international conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Professor S
05-05-2010, 04:52 PM
The rulings of a government court system does mean something to them, otherwise there would be no need for a cover-up.

IMO they covered it up to avoid losing their flock, not because of government legal action.

manasecret
05-05-2010, 06:24 PM
IMO they covered it up to avoid losing their flock, not because of government legal action.

Kind of a chicken or the egg situation -- if it weren't for legal action (and media outcry), would they have to worry about losing their flock? But yes, I agree they are more worried about losing their flock, whatever the cause of that may be.

I see what you're saying, in their mind, they felt like they could fix it internally without courts getting involved and mussing it up. Can't say that makes breaking the law any better. Especially with their track record of "fixing" it by slapping priests on the wrist and transferring them somewhere else.

Also to note, from my Catholic education and exposure, as I remember it Catholics are supposed to follow man's law as well. Though I never quite understood the quandary when man's law doesn't jive with god's law...

Angrist
05-06-2010, 09:02 AM
if it weren't for legal action (and media outcry), would they have to worry about losing their flock? Of course. Legally, the Pope could have an affair (or be gay), no problem there. But that doesn't mean it's ok with the followers of the church.