301 Predator Priests...

[Tassman]

I'm not referring to nowadays, but back then. Your statement is stretching the facts considerably. The most persistent group with a different canon was the Marcionites, who consistently had a smaller canon. There were other books accepted here and there by small groups, but use was generally not widespread. The NT of today largely coalesced quite early; the four gospels were established by the mid-2nd century, and Paul's letters were collected as a group very early (the only question ever concerning them was whether or not Hebrews should be included). Origen may have used the same NT canon we do today.

[carpedm9587]

Doesn't read any better the fourth time through.

Then I do not know what else to say to you, OBP. It seems fairly simple and clear to me. Some homosexuals are involved in this. Most are not. Some heterosexuals are involved with this. Most are not. All of the people involved with this are pedophiles and/or child abusers. Go after pedophiles and child abusers, you go after 100% of the problem. Go after homosexuals and you miss part of the problem and attack a lot of people NOT involved with the issue.

The math (and justice) are pretty simple. I am not hearing anyone who can dispute that reality.

Unless, of course, the entire purpose IS to go after all homosexuals in ministry. Then it makes perfect sense.

[EvoUK]

I'm wondering why no criminal charges have been brought against an institution that has covered up for paedophiles? Their wish to keep it secret to avoid embarrassment is clearly irrelevant to secular law, so why haven't arrests been made?

[seer]

I'm wondering why no criminal charges have been brought against an institution that has covered up for paedophiles? Their wish to keep it secret to avoid embarrassment is clearly irrelevant to secular law, so why haven't arrests been made?

Perhaps a lot has to do with the statute of limitations...

[Sparko]

Then I do not know what else to say to you, OBP. It seems fairly simple and clear to me. Some homosexuals are involved in this. Most are not. Some heterosexuals are involved with this. Most are not. All of the people involved with this are pedophiles and/or child abusers. Go after pedophiles and child abusers, you go after 100% of the problem. Go after homosexuals and you miss part of the problem and attack a lot of people NOT involved with the issue.

The math (and justice) are pretty simple. I am not hearing anyone who can dispute that reality.

Unless, of course, the entire purpose IS to go after all homosexuals in ministry. Then it makes perfect sense.

Actually if you take all of the cases of child abuse we know of, MOST are same-sex sex abuse. That indicates that MOST of the offenders are homosexual, some are not. Not the other way around. It seems fairly simple and clear to the rest of us.

[Sparko]

Perhaps a lot has to do with the statute of limitations...

That would only apply for criminal charges. A class action civil lawsuit against the church for a coordinated coverup could take place after any amount of time. It would be very hard to prove without some official documentation of a policy ordering that though.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm wondering why no criminal charges have been brought against an institution that has covered up for paedophiles? Their wish to keep it secret to avoid embarrassment is clearly irrelevant to secular law, so why haven't arrests been made?

On the individual level, the statute of limitations precludes it for many, and many others have already died.

Not sure about the "institution."

[Terraceth]

I'm wondering why no criminal charges have been brought against an institution that has covered up for paedophiles? Their wish to keep it secret to avoid embarrassment is clearly irrelevant to secular law, so why haven't arrests been made?

How does someone bring up criminal charges against an institution? Is that even possible? That would be like if, instead of charging the individuals responsible for the Enron scandal, the government somehow decided to charge the company itself. Criminal charges don't work that way. Even in the situations where every member of a particular group is charged with something, the charges are against the individual members, not the group, and that only happens if each individual member is believed to be guilty of the crime.

Given that, I expect you are asking one of the following things instead:
1) Why a civil lawsuit (different from a criminal charge!) hasn't been brought against the institution.
2) Why individuals who covered up the abuse haven't been charged.

It's hard to know which of the two you mean, so I'll answer them both. (to be clear: I am referring to those who covered up or ignored the abuse, not those who actually committed the abuse) For #1... well, lawsuits have been made against the specific dioceses that enabled the abuses. So there's your answer on that.

For #2... well, much like #1, some have been charged, such as William Lynn. If the question is why more haven't been charged, or why some individuals known to be complicit in covering it up haven't been charged, we need to remember that most of these cases occurred decades ago. This results in one of the following three things being true for many such individuals which prevents them from being charged:
1) They're dead.
2) The statute of limitations has been exceeded.
3) Their actions weren't actually illegal at the time the events occurred (for example, in Massachussetts, it wasn't until 2002 that priests/bishops were actually legally required to report alleged abuses).

Taken altogether, this results in not many individuals to actually charge for the cover-ups.

[Christianbookworm]

So, it will be up to the highest court to pass judgment? And I am not referring to any earthly court by the way. I giess they get away with it in an atheistic worldview. But they claim to be theists so how can those perps think they sha;; have no consequences? At the least, a very stern lecture and no rewards.

[carpedm9587]

Actually if you take all of the cases of child abuse we know of, MOST are same-sex sex abuse. That indicates that MOST of the offenders are homosexual, some are not. Not the other way around. It seems fairly simple and clear to the rest of us.

That is not what the data shows. In the U.S., girls are abused more than boys by a slight margin. A significant percentage of both groups are victimized by family members, and an enormous percentage are victimized by someone they know. The CDC estimates that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are victimized.

So you are basing your conclusions on flawed data. Not to mention you are completely ignoring position of psychologist and psychiatrists since 1973 - that pedophilia is a mental disorder and there are both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles.

Ignoring the data does not make it go away, and it does not make you right.

[Sparko]

That is not what the data shows. In the U.S., girls are abused more than boys by a slight margin. A significant percentage of both groups are victimized by family members, and an enormous percentage are victimized by someone they know. The CDC estimates that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are victimized.

So you are basing your conclusions on flawed data. Not to mention you are completely ignoring position of psychologist and psychiatrists since 1973 - that pedophilia is a mental disorder and there are both homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles.

Ignoring the data does not make it go away, and it does not make you right.

Give it up Carp! We are talking about child abuse IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Not everywhere. Sheesh.

This is where you try equivocating again to ignore an inconvenient fact.

In the catholic church, child abuse is overwhelmingly same-sex, which makes it a homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. Is that specific enough for you? Hmm?

[carpedm9587]

Give it up Carp! We are talking about child abuse IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Not everywhere. Sheesh.

This is where you try equivocating again to ignore an inconvenient fact.

In the catholic church, child abuse is overwhelmingly same-sex, which makes it a homosexual problem in the Catholic Church. Is that specific enough for you? Hmm?

Then you apparently missed my point, so I'll repeat it and expand on it for clarity. In the general community, child sex abuse is actually slightly skewed to men-with-girls, yet we do not refer to the "heterosexual problem." So it is inconsistent to associate the child sex abuse in the catholic church as a "homosexual problem." It is also harmful. To see these, we need note only a few things.

FACT: Both boys and girls have been abused by catholic priests.
FACT: Boys are far more likely to be abused than girls.
FACT: Less than 4% of the Catholic clergy is involved. (this is based on extrapolation from the reporting diocese, the time period involved, the number of priests reported, and the number of priests in the diocese).
FACT: The highest estimate I have seen of gay priests in the catholic church is 58%
FACT: Put the last two facts together, and the majority of gay catholic priests are NOT involved.

So the conclusion is fairly simple. If you approach this issue by attacking "homosexuals" and labeling it a "homosexual problem," you will be attacking a huge number of innocent men serving faithfully in ministry and living their vow of celibacy. Since people here have repeatedly said there is nothing immoral about "being homosexual," you are truly attacking innocent men of faith. You will also NOT be attacking a smaller number of heterosexuals who are abusing girls. If you approach the problem as a pedophilia/child-abuse problem, you will be attacking ALL of those guilty of such horrendous actions, and NOT attacking a lot of innocent men.

[Sparko]

Then you apparently missed my point, so I'll repeat it and expand on it for clarity. In the general community, child sex abuse is actually slightly skewed to men-with-girls, yet we do not refer to the "heterosexual problem." So it is inconsistent to associate the child sex abuse in the catholic church as a "homosexual problem." It is also harmful. To see these, we need note only a few things.

FACT: Both boys and girls have been abused by catholic priests.
FACT: Boys are far more likely to be abused than girls.
FACT: Less than 4% of the Catholic clergy is involved. (this is based on extrapolation from the reporting diocese, the time period involved, the number of priests reported, and the number of priests in the diocese).
FACT: The highest estimate I have seen of gay priests in the catholic church is 58%
FACT: Put the last two facts together, and the majority of gay catholic priests are NOT involved.

So the conclusion is fairly simple. If you approach this issue by attacking "homosexuals" and labeling it a "homosexual problem," you will be attacking a huge number of innocent men serving faithfully in ministry and living their vow of celibacy. Since people here have repeatedly said there is nothing immoral about "being homosexual," you are truly attacking innocent men of faith. You will also NOT be attacking a smaller number of heterosexuals who are abusing girls. If you approach the problem as a pedophilia/child-abuse problem, you will be attacking ALL of those guilty of such horrendous actions, and NOT attacking a lot of innocent men.

We are not talking about the whole world. This is you playing semantic games yet again to dismiss evidence or statistics you don't like.

If you have an isolated group in which there is child abuse in which most of the cases are same-sex, then obviously most of the offenders are homosexual - even allowing for some very small number heterosexual same-sex offenses. You have a homosexual problem.

[Leonhard]

FACT: Both boys and girls have been abused by catholic priests.
FACT: Boys are far more likely to be abused than girls.
FACT: Less than 4% of the Catholic clergy is involved. (this is based on extrapolation from the reporting diocese, the time period involved, the number of priests reported, and the number of priests in the diocese).
FACT: The highest estimate I have seen of gay priests in the catholic church is 58%
FACT: Put the last two facts together, and the majority of gay catholic priests are NOT involved.

Actually there's an undistributed middle logical fallacy here. You're assuming that whether a Catholic priest identifies as gay or not is irrelevant to whether they tend to commit rape against boys.

It could be both be true that is a minority of priests that's doing it, and that its a minority of priests who are gay that's doing it, but that its mostly priests who consider themselves gay that are doing it.

[carpedm9587]

We are not talking about the whole world. This is you playing semantic games yet again to dismiss evidence or statistics you don't like.

If you have an isolated group in which there is child abuse in which most of the cases are same-sex, then obviously most of the offenders are homosexual - even allowing for some very small number heterosexual same-sex offenses. You have a homosexual problem.

Way to ignore the argument, Sparko.