redwhine wrote: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.

Yes, fair point. I know what I was trying to say, but I didn't really say it! I think the sense of an organizational cover-up, covering thousands of abusers and victims, seems more disturbing than the family down the road which covered up their dad's abuse of his daughter. I suppose in a way that's irrational, since the amount of domestic abuse of children is truly enormous, and could be seen as a pandemic.

nunnington wrote:

redwhine wrote: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.

Yes, fair point. I know what I was trying to say, but I didn't really say it! I think the sense of an organizational cover-up, covering thousands of abusers and victims, seems more disturbing than the family down the road which covered up their dad's abuse of his daughter. I suppose in a way that's irrational, since the amount of domestic abuse of children is truly enormous, and could be seen as a pandemic.

I get what you're saying. The way I view it is not just "how many child abusers" but "how many people responsible for child abuse". The individual who acted alone and is solely responsible for abusing children is disturbing. But when you have many, dozens, hundreds or even thousands who are involved in or responsible for abusing a child that is absolutely horrifying, even if the number of acts of abuse are relatively the same.

For example, a couple of weeks ago I was following the trial of a local man who had severely abused and eventually killed a 5 year old boy. As upsetting the details of that case were I found myself becoming exponentially more infuriated for each person it was revealed had known about the abuse but did nothing to stop it or prevent future incidents.

I think my point would be along the lines of nunnington's, even if we accept that rates of child abuse with the RCC are no different to rates of child abuse in the general public, what does that tell us about the RCC?

Is it sufficient to say that all men are just weak fallible humans or should we expect members of a church which makes grand claims about an omnipotent, judgemental god and objective morals and so on to behave significantly better than the general public. Is it acceptable that this self-proclaimed divinely-supported organisation is no better than ordinary mortals?

Mick, even if you succeed in demonstrating that the RCC is no worse than the next cult, what sort of victory does that give you?

Indeed.

trubble76 wrote:I think my point would be along the lines of nunnington's, even if we accept that rates of child abuse with the RCC are no different to rates of child abuse in the general public, what does that tell us about the RCC?

Is it sufficient to say that all men are just weak fallible humans or should we expect members of a church which makes grand claims about an omnipotent, judgemental god and objective morals and so on to behave significantly better than the general public. Is it acceptable that this self-proclaimed divinely-supported organisation is no better than ordinary mortals?

Mick, even if you succeed in demonstrating that the RCC is no worse than the next cult, what sort of victory does that give you?

So many good posts from both self-proclaimed religious and secular posters alike that go unanswered.

There we go again: It seems there is no end to the discovery of perverted priests.

In today's The Guardian "Vatican ambassador to Dominican Republic accused of paedophilia."

According to the report, Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, papal nuncio for the Dominican Republic, has been removed over pedophilia claims. There is no indication of his age and the duration of his sexual attacks on children, but probably his behavior was known for long time and only the new Pope's Francis more aggressive determination to put an end to pedophilia in the Church, has brought about the Archbishop's fall.

Mick wrote:Here I endeavour to defend the Roman Catholic Church from a haunting myth: Catholic priests or its clergy, or whatever else associated with the Church, present a greater risk of sexual abuse to children....

...Links and Resources...

I've got some links for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQHxkX-tyYU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L1xvdZ ... ature=fvwp

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sph8Qu8wLAk

I've watched each of those at some time in the past, and whilst my memory may be flawed, I do not believe any of them even addresses the claim of whether or not "Catholic priests or its clergy, or whatever else associated with the Church, present a greater risk of sexual abuse to children [than any other comparable group]".

Am I misremembering, if so, could you perhaps give some indication of the time stamp at which the claim is addressed?

Scot Dutchy wrote:
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.

Wait! What did happen to them?

I remember one day my parents were heading out wearing black. I asked where they were going and my mother said a funeral. I asked who's and she said it was one of my aunties!
My heart sank, who could she be referring to? I obviously asked what was going on. Which auntie? Why weren't we (my siblings and I) going?
My mother told me my granddad, my father's dad, had a child with a woman he was married to before he married my granny but she died giving birth.
I've always wondered why we kids weren't told about her at any stage, and if I would ever have even known about this had I not met them that day when they were off to the funeral? But I never really questioned it too far. Having this inner circle of hush-hush and lack of transparency is something I grew used to with old Irish folk.

Now I'm all of a sudden a lot more interested about finding out more about this woman who was my aunt.

Thommo wrote:I've watched each of those at some time in the past, and whilst my memory may be flawed, I do not believe any of them even addresses the claim of whether or not "Catholic priests or its clergy, or whatever else associated with the Church, present a greater risk of sexual abuse to children [than any other comparable group]".

Am I misremembering, if so, could you perhaps give some indication of the time stamp at which the claim is addressed?

I think you are misremembering, yes.

Hitchens and Fry both make the specific point that in an organisation that believes itself to be infallible, that is run by self imposed virginal men and whos entire dogma is obsessed with sex will always be likely to be involved in this kind of abuse. In other wrds, the very institutional nature of the Catholic church is why it is so dangerous to children.

Needless to say, I agree with them.

In terms of the time stamp, the point is made several times by both contributers in varying degrees of strength and so I am sorry, I cannot point to any specific part.

Animavore wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:
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.

Wait! What did happen to them?

I remember one day my parents were heading out wearing black. I asked where they were going and my mother said a funeral. I asked who's and she said it was one of my aunties!
My heart sank, who could she be referring to? I obviously asked what was going on. Which auntie? Why weren't we (my siblings and I) going?
My mother told me my granddad, my father's dad, had a child with a woman he was married to before he married my granny but she died giving birth.
I've always wondered why we kids weren't told about her at any stage, and if I would ever have even known about this had I not met them that day when they were off to the funeral? But I never really questioned it too far. Having this inner circle of hush-hush and lack of transparency is something I grew used to with old Irish folk.

Now I'm all of a sudden a lot more interested about finding out more about this woman who was my aunt.

Well the catholic church sold them to rich catholic Americans. The girls had no say in the matter. Later the Adoption law was brought in and the girls had to sign away their rights. Most ended up in the laundries.

Irish society is still very hush-hush.