Comments on: The Homo’s Made Us Do It http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736 News, Views, Events, Reviews Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:18:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: domenico http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1295 domenico Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:57:51 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1295 well, I'll wait your posts about others institutions.. well, I'll wait your posts about others institutions..

]]> By: Paul http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1294 Paul Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:33:57 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1294 Well lacking the exact numbers, would you agree that based on what the Archbishop said it must be an absolute minimum of 6000 to 20000 priests? And to quote Tomasi <em>“From available research we know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases."  </em>It's clear he is talking about the clergy as a whole, not on a country by country basis. Thus, as you suggest, any differences which might exist between Angola and the US are irrelavant. Unfortunately your final point just highlights the reason I'm so bloody angry with the church! To be brutally honest with you, for the purposes of this discussion I don't give a crap about abuse in other instititions. You can't (although the Church keeps trying) justify the abuse going on in your own organisation by saying "Well it's much worse over there". Any abuse, by any person, whether religious or otherwise, is unacceptable. But we're talking about the Catholic Church at the moment, so don't try and straw man some other institution where abuse is going on. Well lacking the exact numbers, would you agree that based on what the Archbishop said it must be an absolute minimum of 6000 to 20000 priests?
And to quote Tomasi “From available research we know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases."  It's clear he is talking about the clergy as a whole, not on a country by country basis. Thus, as you suggest, any differences which might exist between Angola and the US are irrelavant.
Unfortunately your final point just highlights the reason I'm so bloody angry with the church! To be brutally honest with you, for the purposes of this discussion I don't give a crap about abuse in other instititions. You can't (although the Church keeps trying) justify the abuse going on in your own organisation by saying "Well it's much worse over there". Any abuse, by any person, whether religious or otherwise, is unacceptable. But we're talking about the Catholic Church at the moment, so don't try and straw man some other institution where abuse is going on.

]]> By: domenico http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1293 domenico Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:45:35 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1293 I  think that  the statistics must be done with the right numbers .. I'm not afraid about numbers if they are correct. Tomasi indeed is not speaking about the priests around the world but only about the  priests who were analyzed in those studies and nations; or do you really think that, by exemple, in Angola and in  the United States there is the same percentage? Obviously you are angry with the Catholic clergy if you write: "Any business operating under such a history would be bust in a week"... but  you don't ask why the public school still survives even if  there the sexual abuse of children  is a hundred times worse than by priests! “All those reporters, columnists, talking heads, attorneys general, D.A.’s, psychologists and victims groups who were so quick on the draw to get priests have a moral obligation to pursue this issue to the max.  If they don’t, they’re a fraud.” <a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html</a>       I  think that  the statistics must be done with the right numbers .. I'm not afraid about numbers if they are correct.
Tomasi indeed is not speaking about the priests around the world but only about the  priests who were analyzed in those studies and nations; or do you really think that, by exemple, in Angola and in  the United States there is the same percentage?
Obviously you are angry with the Catholic clergy if you write: "Any business operating under such a history would be bust in a week"…
but  you don't ask why the public school still survives even if  there the sexual abuse of children  is a hundred times worse than by priests!
“All those reporters, columnists, talking heads, attorneys general, D.A.’s, psychologists and victims groups who were so quick on the draw to get priests have a moral obligation to pursue this issue to the max.  If they don’t, they’re a fraud.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040101.html
 
 
 

]]> By: Paul http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1289 Paul Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:27 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1289 Hi domenico, many thanks for taking the time to comment. Indeed you are right, my 6,000 to 20,000 number was based on the number of priest <em>today</em>. Are you suggesting that if we extended that back to cover <em>all </em>clergy over the last 50 years the number of clergy the Archbishop happily admits are involved in paedophile activities would be...less? And as for you second comment, I think it's very clear that the context the Archbishop uses the term "involved in sexual abuse" refers to priests actively engaged in sexual abuse, or would you disagree? I'd be very interested to hear of the other inaccuracies you spotted. Paul Hi domenico, many thanks for taking the time to comment. Indeed you are right, my 6,000 to 20,000 number was based on the number of priest today. Are you suggesting that if we extended that back to cover all clergy over the last 50 years the number of clergy the Archbishop happily admits are involved in paedophile activities would be…less?
And as for you second comment, I think it's very clear that the context the Archbishop uses the term "involved in sexual abuse" refers to priests actively engaged in sexual abuse, or would you disagree?
I'd be very interested to hear of the other inaccuracies you spotted.
Paul

]]> By: domenico http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1288 domenico Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:20:29 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1288 again.. "involved in sexual abuses" does not mean "guilty"... again.. "involved in sexual abuses" does not mean "guilty"…

]]> By: domenico http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1287 domenico Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:18:21 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1287 well, article inaccurate in many parts...but the error more evident is this. tomasi says: "<em>“From available research we know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases. </em>" and you says: " there are approximately 400,000 priest world wide". yes there are approximately 400,000 (indead 450000) priests world wide BUT NOW. you must tell us how many priests were world wide in 50 years!   well,
article inaccurate in many parts…but the error more evident is this.
tomasi says: "“From available research we know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases. "
and you says: " there are approximately 400,000 priest world wide".
yes there are approximately 400,000 (indead 450000) priests world wide BUT NOW.
you must tell us how many priests were world wide in 50 years!
 

]]> By: The Catholic Church stumbles in the valley of the shadow of death « Brother Nex http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1280 The Catholic Church stumbles in the valley of the shadow of death « Brother Nex Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:44:17 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1280 [...] to remind people that “its not only us who are doing it!” (neatly harking back to the churches dismissal of claims they were ignoring the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), and further to lay the [...] [...] to remind people that “its not only us who are doing it!” (neatly harking back to the churches dismissal of claims they were ignoring the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), and further to lay the [...]

]]> By: Tjebbe van Tijen http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1278 Tjebbe van Tijen Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:49:09 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1278 I have never had any interest or affiliation with any church... this as a starter to display my possible bias... I came across the same speech and watched it today (only) and my reactions were on the contrary... I think you may underestimate the occurrence of child abuse in whatever circumstances and by whatever perpetrators, so it does mater whether or not the Catholic Church and its personnel are ranking very high, low or in the middle when it comes to sexual abuse of children and adolescents. I also did check on my own the scale of the number of Catholics, priests and the percentages mentioned. From the 1,5 tot 5% of priest-offenders I derive 6 to 20 thousand of them. Now a bit of patience... and when you say to be "a skeptic", think it over, this is a world scale number! How many times such a bad priest misbehaves, how many victims she/he has made is guessing as my guess is that there is no institutionalised administration other than in what people may like to imagine to be the database of God. I make a wild guess of say thirty victims pro priest. That makes up a total over a few decades of half a million to a million misused children. This is a huge crowd when imagining them altogether in one place and time. This is just one promille when expressing it in a distancing percentage (as there are something of one billion (milliard) Catholics. I think the arch-bishop made some sort of a point after all and you may like to delve deeper in the question whether or not it is celibacy as such which makes this happen and what to think about the big majority of priests that fulfil from their practical needs, or faith or some odd combination of the two a livelong marriage with their idea of God. There are many forms of abstinence from many forms that primary pleasure seeking humans choose to try or are able to apply. One must also bear in mind the economic and state management aspects that have led to the celibacy institution in those far away days of downfall of the Roman empire and the need of some form of institutional power that would not be totally corrupted by family and clan interests... That's were the nascent Catholic church structures came in handy. In a way that church has evolved in the mix of religious nation and economic multinational as we know it now, still playing a role in unstable societies, delivering services that are as essential to human well being, as being exempted for sexual harassments.  Sexual abuse is much more widespread than you apparently seem to be able to acknowledge bringing yourself in a state of rage, as a person claiming or wanting to be "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs"you may next time try to sober up first...  I have never had any interest or affiliation with any church… this as a starter to display my possible bias… I came across the same speech and watched it today (only) and my reactions were on the contrary… I think you may underestimate the occurrence of child abuse in whatever circumstances and by whatever perpetrators, so it does mater whether or not the Catholic Church and its personnel are ranking very high, low or in the middle when it comes to sexual abuse of children and adolescents. I also did check on my own the scale of the number of Catholics, priests and the percentages mentioned. From the 1,5 tot 5% of priest-offenders I derive 6 to 20 thousand of them. Now a bit of patience… and when you say to be "a skeptic", think it over, this is a world scale number! How many times such a bad priest misbehaves, how many victims she/he has made is guessing as my guess is that there is no institutionalised administration other than in what people may like to imagine to be the database of God. I make a wild guess of say thirty victims pro priest. That makes up a total over a few decades of half a million to a million misused children. This is a huge crowd when imagining them altogether in one place and time. This is just one promille when expressing it in a distancing percentage (as there are something of one billion (milliard) Catholics.

I think the arch-bishop made some sort of a point after all and you may like to delve deeper in the question whether or not it is celibacy as such which makes this happen and what to think about the big majority of priests that fulfil from their practical needs, or faith or some odd combination of the two a livelong marriage with their idea of God. There are many forms of abstinence from many forms that primary pleasure seeking humans choose to try or are able to apply. One must also bear in mind the economic and state management aspects that have led to the celibacy institution in those far away days of downfall of the Roman empire and the need of some form of institutional power that would not be totally corrupted by family and clan interests… That's were the nascent Catholic church structures came in handy. In a way that church has evolved in the mix of religious nation and economic multinational as we know it now, still playing a role in unstable societies, delivering services that are as essential to human well being, as being exempted for sexual harassments. 

Sexual abuse is much more widespread than you apparently seem to be able to acknowledge bringing yourself in a state of rage, as a person claiming or wanting to be "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs"you may next time try to sober up first… 

]]> By: Boy31 http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1134 Boy31 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:45:37 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1134 Hold a spelling bee and crown the winner. , Hold a spelling bee and crown the winner. ,

]]> By: Wordwizard http://www.skeptic.org.uk/news/2009/1736/comment-page-1#comment-1126 Wordwizard Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:59:25 +0000 http://skeptic.org.uk/news/?p=1736#comment-1126 Were you actually expecting anything different? (Although the bitchy clean-up-your-own-houses remark WAS a little over the top....) Were you actually expecting anything different? (Although the bitchy clean-up-your-own-houses remark WAS a little over the top….)

]]>