Catholic Church Scandal & PC Terms

[SteelyD]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Pedophile cult apologists unite!

Never mind the fact that a lot of the children in question were prepubescent when they were molested.

The Catholic Church should adopt a new motto: No child’s behind left.[/quote]

Oh, hai guyz, another bigoted, fact ignorant religion bashing thread! In T-Nation PWI? Who’da thunk it?

Looking for a bona fide ‘pedophile cult’? Just try out your public schools-- they’re rife with them. In fact, abuse rates in public schools are about 100x greater than ‘the clergy’.

Where are all the ‘Government Public School Pedophile Bashing’ threads?

Oh, look, it turns out that the media reports grossly overstate: 1) who is largely responsible for sexual abuse, 2) the ratio of stories/reports of ‘clergy’ abuse vs. other professions, 3) the ‘Catholic’ portion of the small subset listed in #2.

Hey, but don’t let the US Govt’s own numbers get in the way of your ignorance and overt religious bigotry.

---

[i]They highlight a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report Child Maltreatment 2006, which shows that about 66 percent of sexual abuse perpetrators are parents, other relatives, unmarried partners of parents, friends or neighbors. Only 0.5 percent are classed as professionals, among whom clergy are a subset.

Neither Child Maltreatment 2006 nor any other study identifies clergy (much less Catholic priests) as a statistically significant class of perpetrators. Statistically insignificant and taken from years and decades past, cases of abuse involving Catholic clergy�¢ though profoundly troubling�¢ are nonetheless few compared to the cases involving, for example, public-school teachers, the Nussbaums argued.

In both actual numbers and percentages, sexual abuse of children by teachers, coaches, and employees in public schools exceeds anything that occurred in Catholic institutions, they continued, claiming that sexual abuse of children in public schools is still occurring in significant numbers, in contrast to Catholic institutions.

According to the Nussbaums, expert Prof. Carol Shakeshaft told Education Week magazine "The physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.

The Catholic bishops 2007 Annual Report on sexual abuse, based on an outside audit, found fifteen allegations of childhood sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the U.S. from 2000 to 2007, an average rate of less than two per year. However, a 2007 Associated Press investigation indentified 2,570 public school teachers in the period 2001 to 2005 who had their teaching licenses taken away, denied, surrendered voluntarily, or restricted as a result of sexual conduct with minors.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15022[/i]

[forlife]

To be fair, you would need to look at the percentage likelihood of a priest vs. teacher being a pedophile, rather than the raw numbers, since there are far more teachers than priests. It could be the case that pedophilia is 100x more likely in public schools, but that any given priest is significantly more likely to be a pedophile than any given teacher. Not that I’m arguing this is the case, but it’s a possibility.

I do think that religions which push the clergy into celibacy are likely to experience higher rates of sexual disorders, since celibacy is an unnatural state for many.

[SteelyD]

[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, you would need to look at the percentage likelihood of a priest vs. teacher being a pedophile, rather than the raw numbers, since there are far more teachers than priests. It could be the case that pedophilia is 100x more likely in public schools, but that any given priest is significantly more likely to be a pedophile than any given teacher. Not that I’m arguing this is the case, but it’s a possibility.

I do think that religions which push the clergy into celibacy are likely to experience higher rates of sexual disorders, since celibacy is an unnatural state for many.[/quote]

This was the obvious reply, and a false assumption. Who cares what the ratio of teacher to preists is. It’s a meaningless statistic in that in pure numbers and rates, a child is more likely to be molested by a public school ‘official’ (ie teacher, coach, etc). You can talk about ‘any given priest’ and the likelyhood of him being a pedophile, but it doesn’t translate into actual rates of abuse, which are clearly higher in public schools.

If there is one person in the world who, I don’t know, paints the Space Shuttle, and he’s a known pedophile, then you can say that 100% of the people who paint the Space Shuttle are pedophiles. But the likelyhood of the other 6 billion or so people in the world who may come with him makes the rate essentially zero.

The fact is that the rates of sexual child abuse in public schools is (now, read closely) 100 times greater than those rates for clergy.

On a separate note, I would urge you, as T-Nation’s resident gay crusader, to tread lightly on your thoughts/opinions on what is an ‘unnatural state’ of human behavior. Kinda pot-kettle-black, don’t you think? But, I digress.

[forlife]

It really depends on the question you’re asking.

If it’s “Are more children molested by teachers or priests”, then the stats you provided are (apparently) accurate.

If it’s “Is a child more likely to be molested by a given teacher or priest”, then the stats are misleading.

Do you think pushing an entire category of people into celibacy is a good idea? Do you believe that doing so could lead to sexual repression and “acting out”?

[clip11]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Pedophile cult apologists unite!

Never mind the fact that a lot of the children in question were prepubescent when they were molested.

The Catholic Church should adopt a new motto: No child’s behind left.[/quote]

Some of them were. Alot of them were teens.

[clip11]

I was just saying that these priests should be classified as homosexuals instead of pedophiles as the media and homo rights groups try to say.

[clip11]

And why of all sexy women on earth do you have a square shaped woman in your avatar?[/quote]

Shes just thick…

[Sloth]

[quote]forlife wrote:
It really depends on the question you’re asking.

If it’s “Are more children molested by teachers or priests”, then the stats you provided are (apparently) accurate.

If it’s “Is a child more likely to be molested by a given teacher or priest”, then the stats are misleading.

Do you think pushing an entire category of people into celibacy is a good idea? Do you believe that doing so could lead to sexual repression and “acting out”?[/quote]

Pushing? The priestly vocation is completely voluntary. Heck, a priest can leave his office and marry, and is still a good catholic. Not a sin. If you didn’t know about the vow of celibacy before entering seminary…

Celibacy is more voluntary than paying taxes.

[SteelyD]

[quote]forlife wrote:
To be fair, you would need to look at the percentage likelihood of a priest vs. teacher being a pedophile, rather than the raw numbers, since there are far more teachers than priests. It could be the case that pedophilia is 100x more likely in public schools, but that any given priest is significantly more likely to be a pedophile than any given teacher. [/quote]

I think you’re not really understanding the numbers here. I’ll tell you what-- since I found the numbers that support my position (actually, I formed my position based on the numbers), why don’t you show me the numbers that support what you’re trying argue.

You’re trying use a ‘car/airplane crash’ comparison like ‘that since there are fewer airplanes than cars, it’s more likely that any given airplane is more likely to crash than cars’. However, the overwhelming numbers suggest that air travel is much safer than that by automobile.

These numbers are saying exactly the opposite of what you are trying to argue. They are saying that a child, ANY GIVEN CHILD, is MORE LIKELY to be SEXUALLY ABUSED in a PUBLIC SCHOOL BY A TEACHER/COACH/ETC than BY A CLERGYMAN. That is what the RATE calculations take into account. INCIDENTS PER DATA POPULATION.

Not that I’m arguing this is the case, but it’s a possibility.

But you are arguing this is the case and with no data to back up what you’re saying.

And, I want to be clear-- I am not defending clergy (or anyone) convicted of these heinous crimes. They should be castrated without anesthesia and hanged from their toes. However, this mass propagation of the likelyhood of molestation by clergy (of any denomination) is the result of media overhype and reporting fueled by a vocal hatred of religion and bigotry.

While it’s atrocious that these things happen, it seems in vogue to attack an institution with a fervor that’s not deserved. The numbers bear out that if you’re going to attack an institution, you’re more likely to find the ill-behavior in your own public school systems than in your churches.

[quote]forlife wrote:
It really depends on the question you’re asking.

If it’s “Are more children molested by teachers or priests”, then the stats you provided are (apparently) accurate.

If it’s “Is a child more likely to be molested by a given teacher or priest”, then the stats are misleading.
[/quote]

No, the numbers (ie the rates) are clear that a child is more likely to be molested by a teacher than a priest. You’re playing a semantics game that is not relevant to try to prove your point.

[quote]
Do you think pushing an entire category of people into celibacy is a good idea? Do you believe that doing so could lead to sexual repression and “acting out”?[/quote]

Nobody ‘pushes’ priests into celebacy- it’s voluntary. Let’s be clear here-- this is not a “Catholic Problem”, these problems spill over into many other denominations (a simple search will bear this out). The misconception is an over-reporting problem versus true numbers.

As to the other questions, I have no fucking clue and neither do you.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Pushing? The priestly vocation is completely voluntary. Heck, a priest can leave his office and marry, and is still a good catholic. Not a sin. If you didn’t know about the vow of celibacy before entering seminary…

Celibacy is more voluntary than paying taxes.[/quote]

Pushing in the sense that celibacy is required if you feel the calling to be a priest or nun. I just think it’s sad and unfortunate, since many other religions allow their clergy to marry.

[forlife]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
But you are arguing this is the case and with no data to back up what you’re saying.
[/quote]

No, I’m not. I was just pointing out that your numbers are misleading if you want to ask whether a particular priest is more/less likely to be a pedophile than a particular teacher. It is quite possible that the percentage of pedophile priests is higher than the percentage of pedophile teachers; your numbers don’t address that.

You’re trying use a ‘car/airplane crash’ comparison like ‘that since there are fewer airplanes than cars, it’s more likely that any given airplane is more likely to crash than cars’. However, the overwhelming numbers suggest that air travel is much safer than that by automobile.

That’s only because people travel in cars more frequently than they travel in planes. If a higher percentage of airplanes crash compared to cars, then on any given trip you will be safer by going in a car.

[SteelyD]

[quote]forlife wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
But you are arguing this is the case and with no data to back up what you’re saying.

No, I’m not. I was just pointing out that your numbers are misleading if you want to ask whether a particular priest is more/less likely to be a pedophile than a particular teacher. It is quite possible that the percentage of pedophile priests is higher than the percentage of pedophile teachers; your numbers don’t address that.

You’re trying use a ‘car/airplane crash’ comparison like ‘that since there are fewer airplanes than cars, it’s more likely that any given airplane is more likely to crash than cars’. However, the overwhelming numbers suggest that air travel is much safer than that by automobile.

That’s only because people travel in cars more frequently than they travel in planes. If a higher percentage of airplanes crash compared to cars, then on any given trip you will be safer by going in a car.[/quote]

You don’t understand ‘rates’. There are overwhelmingly more cars on the road than airplanes in service carrying millions more people ‘per vehicle mile’. Yet, you are magnitudes more likely to die in an auto accident than in an airplane. Population of cars >>>>>>>>> than airplanes. The RATE calculations bear out that you are much more likely to die in any given car than any given airplane even though there are many, many, many more cars on the road. This is EXACTLY what the molestation rates are saying about teachers vs. clergy. Even though there are many more, the RATE of incidents is higher, which, in fact, suggests that the likelyhood is greater of an incident with any given teacher.

[forlife]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
You don’t understand ‘rates’. There are overwhelmingly more cars on the road than airplanes in service carrying millions more people ‘per vehicle mile’. Yet, you are magnitudes more likely to die in an auto accident than in an airplane. Population of cars >>>>>>>>> than airplanes. The RATE calculations bear out that you are much more likely to die in any given car than any given airplane even though there are many, many, many more cars on the road. This is EXACTLY what the molestation rates are saying about teachers vs. clergy. Even though there are many more, the RATE of incidents is higher, which, in fact, suggests that the likelyhood is greater of an incident with any given teacher.[/quote]

Dude, it’s not rocket science.

Let’s say that 10% of airplanes crash, but only 1% of automobiles crash.

Statistically, you are more likely to die in an automobile over the entire course of your traveling life, because you travel in an automobile more than 10x the frequency that you travel in a plane.

However, you are still 10x as likely to die on a given trip if you go on a plane than if you go in a car.

[SteelyD]

You’re correct, it’s NOT rocket science, it’s basic statistics. Rate calculations normalize populations so that you can compare apples to apples.

I understand what you’re trying to say. The problem is that you’re making up results without any data– you’re speculating while I’m siting references. We could sit here and make shit up all day, that doesn’t change the conclusions of the sited study.

You go ahead, though, don’t let real numbers get in the way of a good emotional argument.

Cheers!

[forlife]

Why do you keep saying I’m making up results, when I’ve repeatedly said that I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT A PRIEST IS, IN FACT MORE LIKELY TO MOLEST CHILDREN THAN A TEACHER?

My point, again, is that you can’t answer that question based on the statistics you provided.

Get it yet?

[Sloth]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Pushing? The priestly vocation is completely voluntary. Heck, a priest can leave his office and marry, and is still a good catholic. Not a sin. If you didn’t know about the vow of celibacy before entering seminary…

Celibacy is more voluntary than paying taxes.

Pushing in the sense that celibacy is required if you feel the calling to be a priest or nun. I just think it’s sad and unfortunate, since many other religions allow their clergy to marry.[/quote]

Ah, so they want it THEIR way. Get married, become a deacon.

[Makavali]

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Oh, hai guyz, another bigoted, fact ignorant religion bashing thread! In T-Nation PWI? Who’da thunk it?

Looking for a bona fide ‘pedophile cult’? Just try out your public schools-- they’re rife with them. In fact, abuse rates in public schools are about 100x greater than ‘the clergy’.

Where are all the ‘Government Public School Pedophile Bashing’ threads?

Oh, look, it turns out that the media reports grossly overstate: 1) who is largely responsible for sexual abuse, 2) the ratio of stories/reports of ‘clergy’ abuse vs. other professions, 3) the ‘Catholic’ portion of the small subset listed in #2.

Hey, but don’t let the US Govt’s own numbers get in the way of your ignorance and overt religious bigotry.[/quote]

Why are you people so easy to wind up?

el oh el

[Makavali]

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Pedophile cult apologists unite!

Never mind the fact that a lot of the children in question were prepubescent when they were molested.

The Catholic Church should adopt a new motto: No child’s behind left.

Some of them were. Alot of them were teens.

[/quote]

Glad we cleared that up, I was afraid they’d actually done something wrong.

[SteelyD]

[quote]Makavali wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
Oh, hai guyz, another bigoted, fact ignorant religion bashing thread! In T-Nation PWI? Who’da thunk it?

Looking for a bona fide ‘pedophile cult’? Just try out your public schools-- they’re rife with them. In fact, abuse rates in public schools are about 100x greater than ‘the clergy’.

Where are all the ‘Government Public School Pedophile Bashing’ threads?

Oh, look, it turns out that the media reports grossly overstate: 1) who is largely responsible for sexual abuse, 2) the ratio of stories/reports of ‘clergy’ abuse vs. other professions, 3) the ‘Catholic’ portion of the small subset listed in #2.

Hey, but don’t let the US Govt’s own numbers get in the way of your ignorance and overt religious bigotry.

Why are you people so easy to wind up?

el oh el[/quote]

Nah. Not wound up. More like dealing with retarded gnats. You can only ignore them so long before you have to scratch the itch, although retarded humans are more annoying.

Feh.

[forlife]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, so they want it THEIR way. Get married, become a deacon. [/quote]

Why is it that the “church” is always right, and pointing out its weaknesses is inevitably labeled as selfishness?

It’s unhealthy to push most people into celibacy. It leads to screwed up lives, and often can result in acting out. I find it sad, in the same way I think it’s sad that churches are pushing gays into celibacy.

Life is too short for loneliness. Not that everyone is going to find a soul mate, but those that otherwise would should be encouraged to do so, rather than being condemned.