Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

[Cunt]

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

So 'yes', then?

[klr]

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

So 'yes', then?

"Yes" to what?

[.Morticia.]

Since teachers and the rate of child sex abuse among teachers has been used as some kind of comparison to demonstrate that the campaign against the priesthood and church is somehow unwarranted and undeserving, amounting to unfounded vilification, the main difference btw the two has been left out.

The education departments of various states and countries have not participated in massive cover ups of child sexual abuse. They have not harboured known perpetrators who went on to commit more crimes.

Thus, the ed. depts are not themselves complicit in the crimes in the way that the church hierarchy is criminally complicit and who in effect aided and abetted.

I can say criminally because they are criminals who are serving time for their crimes.

[apophenia]

How do I know what klr says is true?

"Let Google be your friend ...". There's no obligation on me give detailed references, when all one has to do is plug "Catholic Church sex" into a search engine text box, and let it auto-complete the "scandal" bit. Hit the search button, and Bob's your uncle.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here. I appreciate the links and the information you have provided, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. The quotation you extracted from my post was clearly ex hypothesi, as explicitly clarified later in the post that I do accept your information, do not have doubts about its veracity and accept your position as an authority on the subject. That you chose to quote part of my reply giving the impression that I had serious doubts about your information, while completely ignoring and omitting where I explicitly acknowledged you as an authority seems to me little more than a demonstration that you can egregiously misquote someone. Is that your point?

I don't egregiously misquote, and I read enough following the "how do I know" to make it clear in my mind that I was being asked to front up some sources to go with my earlier claims,.

Awesome. So in other words, you didn't read far enough, and this "I read far enough" business is just so much C.Y.A. But by all means, don't accept responsibility for not reading far enough to make an intelligent response based upon what I actually wrote, and instead based it on a partial reading.

And your nitpick about you not being authority is just a distraction. Who cares. You represented yourself as knowledgeable and I accepted. The rest is ass tooting.

Let me try and frame the context of this discussion (and the way some people here have reacted to you) another way: This is an atheist site. A small site for sure, and one that generally tends towards the madcap end of the spectrum. Why that is happens to be another story altogether, and not relevant here. But be that as it may, we still take stories such as these very seriously at heart. More than that, many of us are veterans of internet forums, and are very familiar with all manner of arguments, positions and debating tactics, especially those related in any way to religion in theory or practice. Given the subject matter of this thread, your second post:

Subject: Pope's pedophilia advisor caught arranging for sex with boys

... would have belonged on the very first page of an Apologists for Catholic Sex Abuse handbook, to be used as an opening gambit. You were probably not to know that. In another context, it might constitute a perfectly valid theoretical/philosophical submission, but not in this context. If a new user with no established position makes a post like this, other users will assess it on the basis of content, and also experience from previous debates. Hence the somewhat negative reaction, although it differed in its strength and expression from one person to the next. "We're all individuals ..."

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

I see. So treating somebody according to a stereotype is okay so long as there are actually people who fit the stereotype. I guess this is an admission that it would be okay of me to characterize you as a depressed, nihilistic, gay kiddy diddler because that's a stereotype that some have of atheists, and there are depressed, gay, kiddy diddling atheists. Are you black? If you were, would I be justified in demanding an explanation for your statement that you don't like watermelon?

Yes, I understand that tropes establish themselves on the basis of some empirical validity, but using that as a justification for holding people to stereotypes is just intellectual laziness. And remember, I've been an op on one of the most popular channels on EFNet for over 10 years, so this, "you obviously haven't been around, let me straighten you out" is condescending bullshit. I have dealt with thousands of people throughout the years, and hundreds of tossers who thought their little fucking around was the latest and greatest thing. I understand the problem, I have lived it, and I have not descended to your depths. What you're saying to me seems essentially a variant of, "we could have treated you as an individual, but it was just easier not to." Indeed. It is easier. Is it better? I don't think so. And people like Morticia seem more interested in using my words as some sort of Ouija board to divine my hidden thoughts. Here's a radical thought -- if you want to know what somebody thinks and feels, ASK THEM. That you seem to trust more in your gifts as a head doctor probably rests on a lack of communication skills. I have repeatedly qualified my assertions, contextualized them and done everything I could to qualify my intentions. To no avail. It's just been easier to shit on me and make lame excuses later ("oh, I read enough, I think.." -- no you did not). Not a single one of you here asked me directly, am I defending the church's actions. And I've produced voluminous confessional which elucidate where I'm coming from. To no avail (e.g. Morticia).

As noted, I understand both the tendency to jump to conclusions, to stereotype, and even to make innocent mistakes like Zillas.

There comes a point however, that the "justifying assumptions" have long since outlived their usefulness, when the stereotype has sufficiently been questioned, when the excuse of efficiency becomes little more than a cover for intellectual laziness and an all too human unwillingness to trust for fear of being hurt.

Both you and Zilla mishandled the text you were given, and at least Zilla admitted his mistake with the humorous emoticon. You seem determined to engage in a complex obfuscations to cover up and avoid taking responsibility for your error. But good news. The Catholic church has need of people with such skills, and, they're hiring.

[apophenia]

Since teachers and the rate of child sex abuse among teachers has been used as some kind of comparison to demonstrate that the campaign against the priesthood and church is somehow unwarranted and undeserving, amounting to unfounded vilification, the main difference btw the two has been left out.

The education departments of various states and countries have not participated in massive cover ups of child sexual abuse. They have not harboured known perpetrators who went on to commit more crimes.

Thus, the ed. depts are not themselves complicit in the crimes in the way that the church hierarchy is criminally complicit and who in effect aided and abetted.

I can say criminally because they are criminals who are serving time for their crimes.

Tell that to the women on college campuses who have been doubly raped, first by their rapist, and then by the school that steers them away from civil authorities and into the feeble mockery of campus disciplinary hearings.

And nobody here made the argument that if the numbers were equal the abuse would be unimportant. All abuse is important. There are to my mind three issues which people seem to want to blend together into one goulash of culpable evil. There is the evil of the abusers. There is the evil of the institutionalized cover-up and complicity. And there is the evil of people claiming to be shepherds of morality and truth who are anything but. Yes, I understand these three come together to create a perfect storm of evil in the case of the Catholic church's enabling abusers and covering up their crimes, but it only leads to confusion and error if you don't separate these aspects out and reason about them somewhat individually. Failing to do so only results in moral confusion, category errors, and worst of all, pockets of logical error where an apologist can take up residence and profitably mine that vein to the detriment of people who are trying to do something about the problem. And yes, numbers matter. Just like correct reading of texts matter. Claiming things that can't be referenced to facts in a reasonable fashion again simply undermines the cause of those fighting for truth, and removes crucial supports the victims need for making their case -- both in court and in the court of public opinion. And while I've been an atheist for 30 years, I was not aware of the type of things Rum, seraph and klr have graciously contributed; atheist's gather knowledge that is relevant to them, so the Catholic church's evil is more likely to be known to such; I suspect -- not assert -- that a large segment of the public has little clue of the magnitude and perfidy involved. While I like snickering at theist exploits as much as the next person, I've found an unfortunate tendency in the atheist/skeptics boards I've visited to have a high proportion of threads devoted to little more than derision. This thread, to my impression, appeared headed in that direction. If it had and had remained so, that would have been unfortunate -- if only because it being otherwise has given you good people the opportunity to light a fire under my ass. Now I won't claim I rescued this thread, but aside from the petty bickering (my hand has a life of its own, honest!), I think I've at the least prompted people to bring forth substantive information and arguments. Dunno. I'm still figuring out where I fit in the forum world, if at all. I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

[Hermit]

There is nothing objectionable about defending oneself against being misinterpreted, misunderstood or maligned, apophenia, but the way you are going about it recently a more fitting alias would be apoplexia. Please return to the issue at hand. Hint: It is not about you. It is about paedophilia and sexual abuse perpetrated by some of the catholic clergy and the catholic church's reactions to the problem. Have at that. Your history as an op in an irc channel on one hand, your lack of sea-legs in forums on the other, and whatever other tidbits of your personal history you chose to divulge for reasons best known to yourself are irrelevant as well as boring.

[.Morticia.]

You're welcome to stay and put up some more lame arguments in support of pedophiles .

No one is stopping you.

I didn't see any arguments she made, lame or otherwise, in support of pedophiles.

Can you quote some of those lame arguments for me?

Or are you just full of shit and unwilling to acknowledge your own aroma?

I posted my arguments.

[charlou]

Please return to the issue at hand. Hint: It is not about you. It is about paedophilia and sexual abuse perpetrated by some of the catholic clergy and the catholic church's reactions to the problem. Have at that. Your history as an op in an irc channel on one hand, your lack of sea-legs in forums on the other, and whatever other tidbits of your personal history you chose to divulge for reasons best known to yourself are irrelevant as well as boring.

To be fair, though, apophenia was admonished, invited and welcomed to share something of herself here, in this thread ... and the attention towards her hasn't entirely been focussed on her points about the topic. This has become a strange, kinda dual-purpose thread as a result.


And there I've added to it when I really would have prefered to just discuss the topic at hand.

[.Morticia.]

Since teachers and the rate of child sex abuse among teachers has been used as some kind of comparison to demonstrate that the campaign against the priesthood and church is somehow unwarranted and undeserving, amounting to unfounded vilification, the main difference btw the two has been left out.

The education departments of various states and countries have not participated in massive cover ups of child sexual abuse. They have not harboured known perpetrators who went on to commit more crimes.

Thus, the ed. depts are not themselves complicit in the crimes in the way that the church hierarchy is criminally complicit and who in effect aided and abetted.

I can say criminally because they are criminals who are serving time for their crimes.

Tell that to the women on college campuses who have been doubly raped, first by their rapist, and then by the school that steers them away from civil authorities and into the feeble mockery of campus disciplinary hearings.

And nobody here made the argument that if the numbers were equal the abuse would be unimportant. All abuse is important. There are to my mind three issues which people seem to want to blend together into one goulash of culpable evil. There is the evil of the abusers. There is the evil of the institutionalized cover-up and complicity. And there is the evil of people claiming to be shepherds of morality and truth who are anything but. Yes, I understand these three come together to create a perfect storm of evil in the case of the Catholic church's enabling abusers and covering up their crimes, but it only leads to confusion and error if you don't separate these aspects out and reason about them somewhat individually. Failing to do so only results in moral confusion, category errors, and worst of all, pockets of logical error where an apologist can take up residence and profitably mine that vein to the detriment of people who are trying to do something about the problem. And yes, numbers matter. Just like correct reading of texts matter. Claiming things that can't be referenced to facts in a reasonable fashion again simply undermines the cause of those fighting for truth, and removes crucial supports the victims need for making their case -- both in court and in the court of public opinion. And while I've been an atheist for 30 years, I was not aware of the type of things Rum, seraph and klr have graciously contributed; atheist's gather knowledge that is relevant to them, so the Catholic church's evil is more likely to be known to such; I suspect -- not assert -- that a large segment of the public has little clue of the magnitude and perfidy involved. While I like snickering at theist exploits as much as the next person, I've found an unfortunate tendency in the atheist/skeptics boards I've visited to have a high proportion of threads devoted to little more than derision. This thread, to my impression, appeared headed in that direction. If it had and had remained so, that would have been unfortunate -- if only because it being otherwise has given you good people the opportunity to light a fire under my ass. Now I won't claim I rescued this thread, but aside from the petty bickering (my hand has a life of its own, honest!), I think I've at the least prompted people to bring forth substantive information and arguments. Dunno. I'm still figuring out where I fit in the forum world, if at all. I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

but it only leads to confusion and error if you don't separate these aspects out and reason about them somewhat individually.

There is no confusion and no error.

I thought you might invoke the case of privately owned schools and colleges.

Like all institutions there is potential for abuse and sometimes systems that enable abuse.

But private schools are not part of a greater organisation. They do not move known criminal teachers from one school establishment to another to continue their abuses like the church did.

And so what if they did?

That does not lessen the culpability of the Church and the priests one bit.

[Cunt]

Here is a question for all you marketing buffs:
How could this event be 'spun' to have the largest effect in reducing future incidences of crimes of this type?

[Cunt]

I have to step back and ask myself "What is what I'm doing contributing to my life?" and "What am I contributing to the world by what I'm doing?' Any help answering those questions will be most appreciated.

I liked reading you.

[Cunt]

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

So 'yes', then?

"Yes" to what?

apophenia's question.

[Ronja]

To the user base on this forum (and to a great many people at large to be honest), the issue of widespread sex abuse involving the Catholic Church is long since settled as a matter of overwhelming fact. There are still a great many discussions to be had on the hows and the whys, not to mention the general extent, or guilt/innocence in numerous particular cases. But in general terms, the lie of the land is well understood: Only last week we had the first TV exposé on alleged abuse by Irish missionaries in Africa, something which I had predicted for a long time ...

So 'yes', then?

"Yes" to what?

apophenia's question.

Which one? I'm quite confused now.

[Hermit]

Here is a question for all you marketing buffs:
How could this event be 'spun' to have the largest effect in reducing future incidences of crimes of this type?

An assurance by the catholic church - from the pope downwards - that anybody at all suspected of paedophilia and any other form of sexual abuse will no longer be protected by the confessional, that the confidence of a confessional will no longer be an obstacle for doing so. That is to say, that the confessional does not constitute quasi-immunity from being hauled up in front of a secular court of law. I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though. As Charlou mentioned earlier, there's too much at stake for the church. It would be conceding that divine law is at least on equal footing with secular law.

[charlou]

It would be conceding that divine law is at least on equal footing with secular law.

I think it would be conceding that secular law trumps their 'divine' law.