Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

[Feck]

If the Church only has the same base rate of abuse as other organisations why are there not huge groups People talking about how they were abused by police ,or BT engineers ? also If a member of another organisation is accused the organisation does not A : tell the victim they are going to Hell B: refuse to give information to investigating authorities C: continue to employ the individual D: move the individual to another job working with vulnerable children . E blame secular atheists or society for making the victim seem so damn sexy . The Roads to Rome should be lined with Priests impaled on lamp-posts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

apophenia, why do you think the kiddy fiddlers won't get promoted? They'd likely run out of people to promote rather quickly if that were the policy.

[.Morticia.]

The thread title is certainly misleading.

But there is a more basic question to be answered here and that is whether the base rate of abuse in the clergy differs significantly from the general population, or relative to professionals who by virtue of a fiduciary or other relationship to the public and clientele, are held to a higher ethical standard on account of their position and responsibility.

Do you have any information regarding base rates? A hunch doesn't really cover it.

A key concern is institutionalised/encultured pedophilia and hypocrisy among so-called community mentors and leaders. Piety and celibacy are a crock of shit. Heirarchy. Immunity to scrutiny. Resistence to change. Imposition of faith and credulity. Abuse of trust. Wherever it happens.

Pedophilia in the priesthood is not the same as the bloke down the road doing same on his own.

It's also a matter of institutionalised organised crime and cover ups by the Roman Catholic Church.

[Rob]

It's also about the power of the priest. They are set above normal people, scene as a paternal figure, as an authoritative figure. It really stems from the patriarchal system the R.Catholic church has. If the church had been more rational they would of let their priests get their just reward as a result of their crimes and leave it at that.

[apophenia]

I'll reference some facts from the Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance in a moment, but first some observations.

Yes, my hunch isn't data, it wasn't intended as such, but merely a plausible alternative hypothesis, but it should have been labeled as such by me.

Second the question of whether the church as a standard bearer of truth and morality should be held to a different standard as an organization or its clergy as individuals. I'm not firmly in either camp and am willing to be persuaded, but my general feeling is that they should be held accountable for their crimes but not for their hypocrisy, nor for our moral outrage. Sexual abuse is a crime. Hypocrisy is not. And the two charges should be kept separate. I understand the outrage against people who claim to meet a standard and then fail in a way that is tragically damaging to human lives, but I think it is necessary to think clearly and hold the Church responsible for actual damage, not for the church's supposed failings as an ethical institution. By all means take context into account, but their claims to be a moral authority are a) ascribed to the group and the institution, not the individual, and b) irrelevant to the question of moral culpability (imho).

Another poster suggests they should be held accountable along the same lines as teachers, who have both frequent access and a position of trust and authority over them. However I think it exaggerates the amount of access that priests who specifically deal with the laity have -- and as this thread is about higher ups, they likely have even less. In my experience at a Unitarian Universalist church, the duties which brought one into direct contact with children are largely relegated to volunteers; I have no idea the weighting in terms of Catholic clergy, but it is certainly an exaggeration to compare them to teachers. They likely fall in the middle of professionals with access, authority and duty.

One person suggests that if other similar groups are abusing, why do we not see or hear about them, akin to the analogy "Where there's smoke, there's fire" -- there's no smoke, so there can be no fire. First, the logic is flawed; arguing that no smoke implies no fire is the fallacy of denying the antecedent -- there being no smoke in no way implies an absence of fire. Second, have you looked? An argument from silence only has some validity if there is indeed silence. There are reports of abuse among other professionals -- police included -- whether the number and severity of the crimes are comparable is an open question at this point in the thread. Third, abuses by the Catholic church are a) cumulative -- we're seeing a dam bursting phenomena, and b) attract more media and public attention and scrutiny for obvious reasons resulting in over-representation in the media and public perception, c) there isn't organized political pressure opposing these other professions and d) like priests, abuse by professionals like police are probably under reported for a number of reasons.

Now. I've been asked to explain why I feel that abusers within the church likely are not promoted at as high a rate as non-abusers. I will have to defer on that question as I tire, and feel the need for refreshment. Quick, non-definitive answer, that's simply how businesses work; employees who are perceived as potential liabilities or possessing bad judgement are preferentially ignored in the promotion process; for example, an executive convicted of DUI will be passed over for promotion in favor of one who hasn't -- regardless of the legality of such. Another obstacle for promotion of the "diddlers" as you call them -- and I resent such cutesy terms, it numbs us to the shock and criminality, which hurts victims --is that abusers are frequently relocated to less visible positions to shield them; employees in high visibility positions are far more likely to get promoted than employees in low visibility positions. Again, that's just how businesses and organizations work.

Child Sexual Abuse By Roman Catholic Clergy (Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance)

[Rum]

Until recently one of my duties was to oversee the system which checks teachers records for child protection purposes (CRBs) for the county I worked for. As such I know both from attending training and from direct experience of dealing with cases that paedophiles gravitate to positions where they can maximise the potential for intimate and sexual contact with kids. It is easy to underestimate how central a driver in the lives of some paedophiles this objective can be.

So while you say that the contact they have had with kids is 'exaggerated' the facts are that the systems were so lax compared even to the imperfect secular ones that all they would have to do would be to volunteer for or promote the sorts of activities which would attract kids. Basically the Catholic church was complacent, lazy, self satisfied, slow to respond and arrogant in its approach to this issue. By displaying these characteristics they appear to have prolonged the suffering of many kids.

I am not quite sure why you have turned up and jumped right in with this frankly, especially here, an essentially atheistic forum. You are free to do so of course, but a hello and a little about you would be good too.

[.Morticia.]

I'll reference some facts from the Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance in a moment, but first some observations.

Yes, my hunch isn't data, it wasn't intended as such, but merely a plausible alternative hypothesis, but it should have been labeled as such by me.

Second the question of whether the church as a standard bearer of truth and morality should be held to a different standard as an organization or its clergy as individuals. I'm not firmly in either camp and am willing to be persuaded, but my general feeling is that they should be held accountable for their crimes but not for their hypocrisy, nor for our moral outrage. Sexual abuse is a crime. Hypocrisy is not. And the two charges should be kept separate. I understand the outrage against people who claim to meet a standard and then fail in a way that is tragically damaging to human lives, but I think it is necessary to think clearly and hold the Church responsible for actual damage, not for the church's supposed failings as an ethical institution. By all means take context into account, but their claims to be a moral authority are a) ascribed to the group and the institution, not the individual, and b) irrelevant to the question of moral culpability (imho).

Another poster suggests they should be held accountable along the same lines as teachers, who have both frequent access and a position of trust and authority over them. However I think it exaggerates the amount of access that priests who specifically deal with the laity have -- and as this thread is about higher ups, they likely have even less. In my experience at a Unitarian Universalist church, the duties which brought one into direct contact with children are largely relegated to volunteers; I have no idea the weighting in terms of Catholic clergy, but it is certainly an exaggeration to compare them to teachers. They likely fall in the middle of professionals with access, authority and duty.

One person suggests that if other similar groups are abusing, why do we not see or hear about them, akin to the analogy "Where there's smoke, there's fire" -- there's no smoke, so there can be no fire. First, the logic is flawed; arguing that no smoke implies no fire is the fallacy of denying the antecedent -- there being no smoke in no way implies an absence of fire. Second, have you looked? An argument from silence only has some validity if there is indeed silence. There are reports of abuse among other professionals -- police included -- whether the number and severity of the crimes are comparable is an open question at this point in the thread. Third, abuses by the Catholic church are a) cumulative -- we're seeing a dam bursting phenomena, and b) attract more media and public attention and scrutiny for obvious reasons resulting in over-representation in the media and public perception, c) there isn't organized political pressure opposing these other professions and d) like priests, abuse by professionals like police are probably under reported for a number of reasons.

Now. I've been asked to explain why I feel that abusers within the church likely are not promoted at as high a rate as non-abusers. I will have to defer on that question as I tire, and feel the need for refreshment. Quick, non-definitive answer, that's simply how businesses work; employees who are perceived as potential liabilities or possessing bad judgement are preferentially ignored in the promotion process; for example, an executive convicted of DUI will be passed over for promotion in favor of one who hasn't -- regardless of the legality of such. Another obstacle for promotion of the "diddlers" as you call them -- and I resent such cutesy terms, it numbs us to the shock and criminality, which hurts victims --is that abusers are frequently relocated to less visible positions to shield them; employees in high visibility positions are far more likely to get promoted than employees in low visibility positions. Again, that's just how businesses and organizations work.

Child Sexual Abuse By Roman Catholic Clergy (Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance)

No comment on the systematic abuse of power by the church to enable and cover up the crimes.

It's not just how businesses and organizations work , it's how criminal organisations works.

Honest businesses and organisations DO NOT work like that.

[klr]

...
Thank you for that glorious repetition, my brain apparently didn't soak up enough of its goodness the first time through. Besides being a walloping good example of the genetic fallacy with legs, the original poster's point seemed to be a mix of steamy innuendo, burlesque and guilt by association. The representative frequency of past or present abusers at upper levels won't be settled by smirking about it. My hunch is that priests that are identified are likely protected, true, but unlikely to be promoted.

Basically correct, but hardly a noble response on the part of Mother Church. Instead of getting promoted, they were often just moved along to some other parish, preferably some distance away where they weren't "known", where they simply re-offended. In some cases, they got moved to a different country or even continent. Only with the more "difficult" cases did they eventually get "confined to base", which seems to have been the height of the Church's response for the most part. All the Church seems to have been interested in was keeping a lid on publicity. In many cases it probably suited the priest as well, giving them a fresh source of victims.

As to not being promoted: If you want to have frequent access to children, one of the last thing you would probably want is to be promoted to a level where that access would be drastically restricted.

...
Just as business doesn't promote the unfit, the business of saving souls likely doesn't either.
...

Seriously. Plenty of unfit people get promoted in the commercial world, often well over their heads.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

apophenia, I'll use whatever term is most appropriate. Feel free to be utterly pissed off to the point of suicide if you wish. I'll hand you a knife.

[charlou]

Post reported, zilla.

I am not quite sure why you have turned up and jumped right in with this frankly, especially here, an essentially atheistic forum. You are free to do so of course, but a hello and a little about you would be good too.

Such a pleasant and welcoming way to invite a new person to share.


apophenia, I may not agree with all your points, but like your input. I hope you won't be put off by the proprietorial rudeness here.

[apophenia]

apophenia, I may not agree with all your points, but like your input. I hope you won't be put off by the proprietorial rudeness here.

Naw. It's cool. Ergo, heat / kitchen - GTFO. If I can't take it, I should na be dishing it out.

I don't know what to say about intros, aren't my ideas plenty of tell?

I'm constitutionally opposed to intros, but I'll indulge. Taoist, atheist, philosopher and lover of crime shows. whatever.
Anything else, feel free to ask. "Oh, and I like the color blue, pretty sunsets, guys with a sense of humor, and long walks on the beach. I'm a Pisces."

[Rum]

Post reported, zilla.

I am not quite sure why you have turned up and jumped right in with this frankly, especially here, an essentially atheistic forum. You are free to do so of course, but a hello and a little about you would be good too.

Such a pleasant and welcoming way to invite a new person to share.


apophenia, I may not agree with all your points, but like your input. I hope you won't be put off by the proprietorial rudeness here.

How dare you accuse me of being rude. This new member arrives in complete challenging mode and people counter her remarks. My remarks above are perfectly reasonable and welcoming in the circumstances. You never miss an opportunity for a little dig do you?

[charlou]

I'll reference some facts from the Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance in a moment, but first some observations.

Yes, my hunch isn't data, it wasn't intended as such, but merely a plausible alternative hypothesis, but it should have been labeled as such by me.

Second the question of whether the church as a standard bearer of truth and morality should be held to a different standard as an organization or its clergy as individuals. I'm not firmly in either camp and am willing to be persuaded, but my general feeling is that they should be held accountable for their crimes but not for their hypocrisy, nor for our moral outrage. Sexual abuse is a crime. Hypocrisy is not. And the two charges should be kept separate. I understand the outrage against people who claim to meet a standard and then fail in a way that is tragically damaging to human lives, but I think it is necessary to think clearly and hold the Church responsible for actual damage, not for the church's supposed failings as an ethical institution. By all means take context into account, but their claims to be a moral authority are a) ascribed to the group and the institution, not the individual, and b) irrelevant to the question of moral culpability (imho).

I think individuals, as practitioners and representatives of the institution's ideology and values, are and should be held accountable for their actions as such.

It's good you see that context is important, because it is the context in which these problems have arisen and have been perpetuated that needs scrutiny and change.

I understand your point about separating the criminal aspect from the cultural and moral aspects and think that's the most ethical approach to tackling the criminal aspect ... in a court of law. However, this forum isn't a court of law, and discussion here will and should take the cultural and moral evaluation aspects into account. Only taking the criminal aspect into account, dealing with the crimes alone, doesn't address the culture in which the crimes are perpetuated.

[Rum]

I'll reference some facts from the Toronto Center for Religious Tolerance in a moment, but first some observations.

Yes, my hunch isn't data, it wasn't intended as such, but merely a plausible alternative hypothesis, but it should have been labeled as such by me.

Second the question of whether the church as a standard bearer of truth and morality should be held to a different standard as an organization or its clergy as individuals. I'm not firmly in either camp and am willing to be persuaded, but my general feeling is that they should be held accountable for their crimes but not for their hypocrisy, nor for our moral outrage. Sexual abuse is a crime. Hypocrisy is not. And the two charges should be kept separate. I understand the outrage against people who claim to meet a standard and then fail in a way that is tragically damaging to human lives, but I think it is necessary to think clearly and hold the Church responsible for actual damage, not for the church's supposed failings as an ethical institution. By all means take context into account, but their claims to be a moral authority are a) ascribed to the group and the institution, not the individual, and b) irrelevant to the question of moral culpability (imho).

I think individuals, as practitioners and representatives of the institution's ideology and values, are and should be held accountable for their actions as such.

It's good you see that context is important, because it is the context in which these problems have arisen and have been perpetuated that needs scrutiny and change.

I understand your point about separating the criminal aspect from the cultural and moral aspects and think that's the most ethical approach to tackling the criminal aspect ... in a court of law. However, this forum isn't a court of law, and discussion here will and should take the cultural and moral evaluation aspects into account. Only taking the criminal aspect into account, dealing with the crimes alone, doesn't address the culture in which the crimes are perpetuated.

I see what you did there.

[charlou]

Rum