Pedophilia and the Church

Thommo · **#41** by **Thommo** » Jun 22, 2013 9:39 pm

Mick wrote:Well, I think the case is stronger than that. My sources, at least some of them, have cited studies which conclude there to be no such higher incidence.

They mentioned prevalence rates based on estimates, not studies based on hard data, comparing those to incidence rates isn't a great idea (bearing in mind that, for example, the estimated prevalence rates vary by at least one order of magnitude from one estimate to another!). They then qualified those mentions with the points I quoted - that there are no hard numbers.

Mick wrote:And my sources, at least some of them, are 'in-the-know' about these sorta things. One would think that if the rates were higher, we would know about it. But we dont; and the evidence we do have suggests the contrary.

We would know, without knowing what the numbers are? Seems unlikely.

Thommo · **#42** by **Thommo** » Jun 22, 2013 9:41 pm

Mick wrote:Yeah, that could be an obstacle. We work with the evidence we have, I suppose. It is pretty clear to me that given what we know, the Church is of no more risk than any one else; or, if I can please Thommo, we have no good basis to think the contrary.

Yes, that is much better! :thumbup:

Mick · **#43** by **Mick** » Jun 22, 2013 9:47 pm

It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Doubtdispelled · **#44** by **Doubtdispelled** » Jun 22, 2013 9:48 pm

Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Insurance for what, precisely?

virphen · **#45** by **virphen** » Jun 22, 2013 10:12 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Insurance for what, precisely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

Doubtdispelled · **#46** by **Doubtdispelled** » Jun 23, 2013 12:01 am

virphen wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Insurance for what, precisely?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance

Oh, liability insurance, you reckon?

Which begs the question, why would a church which claims to have the infallible ability to save people (from various nefarious fates) need to insure itself against lawsuits? :scratch:

I guess buildings insurance for churches isn't a bad idea though, given that even the Vatican isn't exempt from lightning strike.

virphen · **#47** by **virphen** » Jun 23, 2013 12:28 am

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Oh, liability insurance, you reckon?

Which begs the question, why would a church which claims to have the infallible ability to save people (from various nefarious fates) need to insure itself against lawsuits?

I guess buildings insurance for churches isn't a bad idea though, given that even the Vatican isn't exempt from lightning strike.

I can't imagine anything else being relevant, I'm sure Mick will correct me if I'm wrong though.

And I agree that "we're no worse than anyone else" isn't a very high standard to aim for when we're dealing with a body claiming to be a moral authority and the earthly representation of goodness itself.

james1v · **#48** by **james1v** » Jun 23, 2013 1:25 am

Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Can you name those insurance companies Mick? I'm interested, because during the 2nd world war, The Vatican, spent the money Mussolini gave them on...That's right! Buying insurance companies shares! Buildings in Rome! Banned by the Allies Banks! The insurance companies they invested in, in that period, refused to pay out their long standing customers, if they where Jewish. :think:

Names, please.

Mick · **#49** by **Mick** » Jun 23, 2013 5:33 am

virphen wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Oh, liability insurance, you reckon?

Which begs the question, why would a church which claims to have the infallible ability to save people (from various nefarious fates) need to insure itself against lawsuits?

I guess buildings insurance for churches isn't a bad idea though, given that even the Vatican isn't exempt from lightning strike.

I can't imagine anything else being relevant, I'm sure Mick will correct me if I'm wrong though.

And I agree that "we're no worse than anyone else" isn't a very high standard to aim for when we're dealing with a body claiming to be a moral authority and the earthly representation of goodness itself.

Well, no, it is not. And this is one reason why it is so embarrassing. However, that was never a standard-it is not a boast. It is just a rebuttal to those who say that Church is worse.

Scar · **#50** by **Scar** » Jun 23, 2013 6:05 am

Mick wrote:
virphen wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Oh, liability insurance, you reckon?

Which begs the question, why would a church which claims to have the infallible ability to save people (from various nefarious fates) need to insure itself against lawsuits?

I guess buildings insurance for churches isn't a bad idea though, given that even the Vatican isn't exempt from lightning strike.

I can't imagine anything else being relevant, I'm sure Mick will correct me if I'm wrong though.

And I agree that "we're no worse than anyone else" isn't a very high standard to aim for when we're dealing with a body claiming to be a moral authority and the earthly representation of goodness itself.

Well, no, it is not. And this is one reason why it is so embarrassing. However, that was never a standard-it is not a boast. It is just a rebuttal to those who say that Church is worse.

Which really isn't what people are saying, so what?

Get it into your stubborn head:

There is an awful lot of child abuse going on in your evil organization that is supposed to be a moral authority.
Furthermore, there is a shitload of sweeping this fact under the carpet and protecting the abusers going on.

Not in relation to anyone else, but in general.
And this is just a slice of the cake of evil that the RCC is baking and has been baking for millenia.

Scot Dutchy · **#51** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jun 23, 2013 6:17 am

Mick wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
Mick wrote:What does the asylum and such have to do with my point? It is a simple red herring.

What asylum? Do you know what the Magdalene Launderies are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum

Magdalene asylums were slave labor laundries from the 18th to the late-20th centuries ostensibly to house "fallen women", a term used to imply female sexual promiscuity. Asylums for such girls and women and others considered to be of poor moral character, such as prostitutes, operated throughout Europe and North America for much of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. London's Magdalen Asylum was active from 1758 to 1966.[1] The first such asylum in Ireland opened on Leeson Street in Dublin in 1765, founded by Lady Arabella Denny.

Initially the mission of the asylums was to rehabilitate women back into society, but by the early twentieth century the homes had become increasingly punitive and prison-like. In most asylums, the inmates were required to undertake hard physical labour, including laundry and needle work. They endured a daily regimen that included long periods of prayer and enforced silence.[2]

In Ireland, such asylums were known as Magdalene laundries where it is estimated that, since their inception, up to 30,000 women had been incarcerated.[3][4] The last such institution in Ireland closed in 1996.[4][5][6]

More abuse that is why.

But I'm not addressing abuse in general.

But why not?

Padophilia occured in laundries on a grand scale. Some of the girls were as young as 11 or 12 and after giving birth we regulary abused by priests and nuns which fits OP exactly.
What happen to their babies? Sold to rich catholics in the States.
So why not mention them.
Why were Irish fathers denied the right to look after their children when the mother had died (often in child birth because the baby's life was more important) and what happened to those children? Have a guess.

As a catholic the truth to you it is very uncomfortable. This did not happen centuries, it happened only 20 years ago. There are plenty of Irish people that grew up with threat of the laundries and the technical schools. My wife is one of them.

A simple argument with a nun in a normal school could be sufficient to guarentee a place in a laundry. All this was sactioned and approved by Rome.

Every child lived in fear and that is great when you think it is meant to be a xtian organisation.

THWOTH · **#52** by **THWOTH** » Jun 23, 2013 7:34 am

virphen wrote:
Doubtdispelled wrote:
Oh, liability insurance, you reckon?
Which begs the question, why would a church which claims to have the infallible ability to save people (from various nefarious fates) need to insure itself against lawsuits?

I guess buildings insurance for churches isn't a bad idea though, given that even the Vatican isn't exempt from lightning strike.

I can't imagine anything else being relevant, I'm sure Mick will correct me if I'm wrong though.

And I agree that "we're no worse than anyone else" isn't a very high standard to aim for when we're dealing with a body claiming to be a moral authority and the earthly representation of goodness itself.

As an employer the Church will be required to take out insurance, but whether the out of court settlements they undertook in the US were paid by insurers is another matter. Criminal liability is not covered by this kind of arrangement.

The notion that US children are no more or less likely to be the victims of abuse by RCC officials than anyone else is a little misleading - deliberate so imo. If you're a child of Catholic parents your chances of being abused by a priest are obviously higher than for the general population. It is this broadening of the risks which smacks of insincere PR-speak and the RCC's eagerness to downplay the seriousness of the issue.

nunnington · **#53** by **nunnington** » Jun 24, 2013 8:26 pm

Mick

Aren't you defending the Catholic church against straw men here? I can't see that anyone has claimed that priests are more likely to abuse children than other men in contact with children, have they? I doubt if such statistics are actually available.

The same with cover-ups, possibly. Sex abuse is often covered up - I remember in my school there was a paedophile teacher, who left under a cloud, but just got a job at another school! Of course, this was 50 years ago.

Jimmy Savile's operations were covered up really, or people looked the other way. Sex abuse in families is often covered up by other family members, etc. etc.

But there is something shocking about an institution like the Catholic church which claims to transmit the word of God, to be the guardian of morals, and so on, isn't there? Perhaps we are naive on this score, and I know that Catholics do not claim to be morally any different, well at least, I think they do.

But it is a big fucking organization, and hence, its cover-ups are mega-cover-ups. 1000 individual paedophiles do not shock people really, but 1000 in one organization do shock.

redwhine · **#54** by **redwhine** » Jun 25, 2013 7:14 am

I was with you all the way, even hovering over the like button, until this...

nunnington wrote:1000 individual paedophiles do not shock people really, but 1000 in one organization do shock.

Who are these "people" who would not get shocked by even 1 individual paedophile, never mind a thousand? Please don't count me amongst them.

THWOTH · **#55** by **THWOTH** » Jun 25, 2013 7:23 am

It's also easy to focus on the sexual abuse and ignore the non-sexual abuse, the effects of which can be every bit as difficult and long-term.

But then again, the Catholic Church has a history of systematically brutalising credulous minors will ther stories of the Saints and of the Fiery Pits of Damnation that await all those who disobey.

Ihavenofingerprints · **#56** by **Ihavenofingerprints** » Jun 25, 2013 7:46 am

Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

So do I, banks are also a good guide. In fact the entire financial market is a good guide of what is really going on in the world.

Like for example an insurance company wont lower your costs if you are a christian who plans to pray to a picture of a dead nun whenever you get a serious illness.

It's also interesting to note that banks close down someone's account once they die. If a kid's parents die their house will get sold by the bank in order to close the loan as well. I never understood as a christian why loans couldn't run into the afterlife, in fact it would make for a much better world. I mean, I could make up bullshit justifications but was never really comfortable with them deep down.

In fact I would go as far to say that every single exceptional claim made by christianity is implicitly rejected by the financial markets. Another thing about the financial markets is that they are extremely deep with investors coming from loads of different viewpoints. There isn't a prediction you can make about the financial markets that I can't find someone willing to bet against with real money. Yet there is a complete absence of religious people betting according to their religion being correct in the markets. Never have I ever seen someone willing to bet on an afterlife existing, or putting actual money into religious treatments of terminal illnesses.

The biggest failure of islam and christianity is not the potential errors that may occur in their arguments for god's existence. It's their complete absence of presence in the real day to day lives of people, and this is perfectly illustrated by the markets that you cite here.

Beatrice · **#57** by **Beatrice** » Jun 25, 2013 8:42 am

A chilling expose of the cover-ups:
http://documentaryheaven.com/deliver-us-from-evil/

The_Metatron · **#58** by **The_Metatron** » Jun 25, 2013 10:32 am

james1v wrote:
Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

Can you name those insurance companies Mick? I'm interested, because during the 2nd world war, The Vatican, spent the money Mussolini gave them on...That's right! Buying insurance companies shares! Buildings in Rome! Banned by the Allies Banks! The insurance companies they invested in, in that period, refused to pay out their long standing customers, if they where Jewish.

Names, please.

Yes, that assertion is going to require a source.

<<crickets chirping...>>

Blackadder · **#59** by **Blackadder** » Jun 25, 2013 12:05 pm

Mick wrote:It is worth noting that insurance companies do not give higher rates of insurance to the RCC or those involved with them in virtue of these sex allegations. If they had good reason to, they would, I think. Of course they could be dividing the cost among everyone else, and also being silent about it all, but I sincerely doubt that. When it comes to risk, I often look at what the insurance companies are doing.

I'm a former executive from the insurance the industry and now a director of a large UK charity that works with children and vulnerable adults. We have to have liability insurance for our care providers and we just did our annual renewals. So I know exactly what the insurance industry is doing in the area of rates and terms for covering liability for abuse and negligence. But I will await Mick's detailed explanation.

Blackadder · **#60** by **Blackadder** » Jun 25, 2013 12:06 pm

Double post

Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Re: Pedophilia and the Church

Who is online