Child rape and the Catholic Church

[notachance]

Can we all agree that raping a child is bad?

Now, there have been numerous fully documented cases of Catholic priests raping children.

This is important: I do NOT blame the institution of the Catholic Church for those rapes.

While a case could be made that for the Church to forbid consensual sex among its adults members might enhance the desire to rape children in those members who already have a tendency to do so, but that is NOT the argument I make here.

The responsibility for those child-rapes ultimately rests with those priests who committed the rapes.

Here is my problem: It's an irrefutable fact that the Church, instead of immediately reporting these rapes to the authorities, and instead of using their considerable influence to ensure that the criminals faced the most stringent punishments for their crimes, they did the opposite.

They actively labored to ensure that these pedophiles could continue raping as many children as possible. It's an incontrovertible fact that they used their influence to protect the rapists from justice by hiding their identity and relocating them to new parishes where they could rape again. When they were relocated and they raped children again, they would relocate them again. And again. And again.

This is fully documented and undeniable. If anybody is unaware of the facts, I strongly recommend you watch the documentary "Deliver us from evil", which I think is both on Netflix and Hulu.

That is the problem. If the Church had not labored to protect these rapists and give them the means and opportunity to continue raping, less children would have been raped.

While the Catholic Church is not responsible for the fact that some people are seriously mentally sick and enjoy raping children, they are responsible for every single child that was raped subsequent to it coming to their attention that rape was taking place, and subsequent to their failure to stop further incidents.



Lets assume that there are some pedophiles among the American Atheist Association. I know of no reported cases, but it's not impossible, and let's assume that it's the case for the purpose of the argument.

That in itself does not speak about the morality of that atheist institution as a whole. BUT, if it transpired that the atheist institution was using its influence to enable extensive raping by its members instead of reporting the crime to the police, there would be an outrage. The entire American Atheist Association would literally be dismantled overnight by the FBI, and every upper management executive would spend the rest of his life as the personal boy toy of some prison gang leader.


Raping children is wrong. An institutionalized and systemic policy to ensure that as many children as possible are raped is even worse.

The only thing that's worse than killing a Jew is designing a concentration camp to kill many Jews.

The only thing worse than raping a child is designing an institutionalized system to rape many children.

I submit to you that the Catholic Church's actions are unforgivable, and that it's immoral for anybody to associate himself/herself with such an evil institution.

If you ever donated money to the Catholic Church, it's an inescapable mathematical fact that some of it went to pay off rape victims, pay for the expense of relocating a rapist, and to otherwise prevent rapists from being arrested, thus enabling additional rapes.

While I'm sure that my distaste comes across in this post, I submit that it cannot be called inflammatory, or offensive, or a carpet statement, or otherwise forbidden, unless a reasonable case can be made that anything I'm saying is not true, and that my anger is not justified.

[dianaiad]

<snip to here>

I would change Hitler from an anti-Semitic into a Zionist. Changing that individual in that specific way would be the single action that would reduce Jew casualties the most.

I am constantly amazed at the consistent accuracy of Godwin's Law.

Ah, well....

The problem here is, of course, that while not exonerating Hitler even a tiny bit, he's not the one who came up with the 'Final Solution." He wasn't at the meeting that discussed it. Nor was he among those who proposed it. He approved of it, certainly; he loved the idea. However, since it wasn't his idea in the first place, getting rid of him wouldn't have prevented it.

Don't kid yourself; Hitler was the visible head of the Nazis, and he had incredible power, and he was extremely important in the setting up and running of that regime. However, if Adolf Hitler had not been there, someone else, with a different name, would have been. Those ideas were not, after all, all his; he was not the only Nazi, nor did Fascism arrive, fully formed, from with in his brain. Getting rid of him might change the names, but not the basic anti-semitism of the area, or the people whose idea the Shoah actually was.

Considering this, then it might be a good idea to rethink your next position. In fact, the Pope was the last person, chronologically, to deal with this issue. It began first with the immediate superiors of the pedophiles, then to the Bishops, to the Cardinals...and only after that did the Pope have to deal with the matter. Or rather, the council of Cardinals.

While it is true that having the Pope issue a bull that saw AHEAD to a future problem, and which warned people not to cover this stuff up if it happens, would have been helpful, I think that you can see the problems with that.

You continue to say that since the Pope 'is the boss of Catholicism," that it is, ultimately, his responsibility. This is true...exactly the way it is true that the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for what any of the sailors do while under his command. The problem, of course, that taking such responsibility does NOT mean that he has the ability to utterly control behavior.

If he doesn't (and he doesn't,) then doing something to HIM isn't going to fix the problem, is it?

I think that what is happening to the church now is the only thing that will: and what's happening to the church now, with the lawsuits that are costing the church millions upon millions of dollars, the loss of credibility and respect...all this is, I'm afraid, about the only thing that will change an institution as big, and as old, as the Catholic church.

That, and the fact that the vast majority of Catholics themselves are trying to change things from where THEY are.

[notachance]

In fact, the Pope was the last person, chronologically, to deal with this issue. It began first with the immediate superiors of the pedophiles, then to the Bishops, to the Cardinals...and only after that did the Pope have to deal with the matter. Or rather, the council of Cardinals.

While it is true that having the Pope issue a bull that saw AHEAD to a future problem, and which warned people not to cover this stuff up if it happens, would have been helpful, I think that you can see the problems with that.

You continue to say that since the Pope 'is the boss of Catholicism," that it is, ultimately, his responsibility. This is true...exactly the way it is true that the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for what any of the sailors do while under his command. The problem, of course, that taking such responsibility does NOT mean that he has the ability to utterly control behavior.

If he doesn't (and he doesn't,) then doing something to HIM isn't going to fix the problem, is it?

Ok, give me the name of a person who has the power to prevent more child rapes than the Pope.

I'm not saying that the Pope can utterly stop ALL child rapes. Of course not. But being that he is the person involved with the problem with the most authority and influence, he can reduce them by a greater amount than anybody else.

Forget Godwin's law, forget a ship captain, forget aaaaaall your ways of muddling the waters.

Just give me the name of somebody who has the power to lower the number of child rapes to a greater degree than the pope.

Here we go. Your response is going to be a single name, right? Just fill in the blank. Ready? Set? Go! (drum roll please): The person who has the power to reduce child rape the most in the world is__________________

[dianaiad]

In fact, the Pope was the last person, chronologically, to deal with this issue. It began first with the immediate superiors of the pedophiles, then to the Bishops, to the Cardinals...and only after that did the Pope have to deal with the matter. Or rather, the council of Cardinals.

While it is true that having the Pope issue a bull that saw AHEAD to a future problem, and which warned people not to cover this stuff up if it happens, would have been helpful, I think that you can see the problems with that.

You continue to say that since the Pope 'is the boss of Catholicism," that it is, ultimately, his responsibility. This is true...exactly the way it is true that the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for what any of the sailors do while under his command. The problem, of course, that taking such responsibility does NOT mean that he has the ability to utterly control behavior.

If he doesn't (and he doesn't,) then doing something to HIM isn't going to fix the problem, is it?

Ok, give me the name of a person who has the power to prevent more child rapes than the Pope.

You. Me. The parents of those in danger. Leaders of all organizations that deal with children. The Pope?

I KNOW that you hate the Catholic church, and I understand that you think that it, all by itself, has been responsible for the majority of 'child-rapes' that have occurred over the last umpty thousand years, but here's news. They have not.

The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of Catholic priests would rather cut their own arms off than molest a child. The incident of pedophile priests in Catholicism is not more than that, per capita, of any other group leadership--even Mormons. Even Boy Scouts. Even American Atheist youth organizations. Sorry, but it's not.

The scandal isn't that there are so many. It is that they were committed by men who not only are seen as "better,' but who have unusual access to their victims. In fact, it is for this reason...the credibility of the priesthood and the access...that pedophiles actively seek to obtain positions like this; youth leaders, priests, etc.,

Not because priests are child molesters--but because they are NOT. When one molests a child, it is a betrayal of the child most of all, but also a betrayal of the group he joined to get access TO that child.

The added scandal...and this is what has come back to bite Catholics where it hurts the worst...is that the church didn't deal with it; it covered it up. When you try to hide rotten meat under your bed, it simply stinks worse than if you had thrown it away in the first place, and that's the mistake the church made; they didn't deal with the mess when it happened.

I'm not saying that the Pope can utterly stop ALL child rapes.

He can't STOP them at all. The most he can do is make sure that the rapist is dealt with appropriately...and that is NOT by transferring him to another diocese. That's where the church abandoned its responsibility.

Of course not. But being that he is the person involved with the problem with the most authority and influence, he can reduce them by a greater amount than anybody else.

Forget Godwin's law, forget a ship captain, forget aaaaaall your ways of muddling the waters.

Hey. I'm not the one who brought Hitler up, OR made an analogy that came back to bite YOU in the behind, notachance.

Just give me the name of somebody who has the power to lower the number of child rapes to a greater degree than the pope.

That's moving the goalposts way too much. You didn't like the answer you gave, so now you are asking a completely irrelevant question?

Here we go. Your response is going to be a single name, right? Just fill in the blank. Ready? Set? Go! (drum roll please): The person who has the power to reduce child rape the most in the world is__________________

You.

[notachance]

Ok, give me the name of a person who has the power to prevent more child rapes than the Pope.

You.

Ok, the Pope becomes aware that a priest molested a child. He has two choices. 1) Notify the authorities and have the pedophile arrested, or 2) he can use his influence to relocate the priest elsewhere.

If he chooses option 1, the pedophile will go to jail and will not be able to rape any children for the next 30 years. If he chooses option 2, the priest will rape another 200 children over the next 30 years.

By choosing option 1, the Pope would have prevented 200 rapes from happening. Simply by picking up the phone and dialing 911.

Now, I've outlined in detail an example of how the Pope could prevent 200 child rapes.

This is not a hypothetical scenario by the way. Read this.

Yet, you claim that I have the ability to prevent more rapes than the Pope. Please explain by exactly what method I would be able to prevent more than 200 rapes.

[notachance]

In fact, the Pope was the last person, chronologically, to deal with this issue. It began first with the immediate superiors of the pedophiles, then to the Bishops, to the Cardinals...and only after that did the Pope have to deal with the matter. Or rather, the council of Cardinals.

While it is true that having the Pope issue a bull that saw AHEAD to a future problem, and which warned people not to cover this stuff up if it happens, would have been helpful, I think that you can see the problems with that.

You continue to say that since the Pope 'is the boss of Catholicism," that it is, ultimately, his responsibility. This is true...exactly the way it is true that the Captain of a ship is ultimately responsible for what any of the sailors do while under his command. The problem, of course, that taking such responsibility does NOT mean that he has the ability to utterly control behavior.

If he doesn't (and he doesn't,) then doing something to HIM isn't going to fix the problem, is it?

Ok, give me the name of a person who has the power to prevent more child rapes than the Pope.

You. Me. The parents of those in danger. Leaders of all organizations that deal with children. The Pope?

I KNOW that you hate the Catholic church, and I understand that you think that it, all by itself, has been responsible for the majority of 'child-rapes' that have occurred over the last umpty thousand years, but here's news. They have not.

I do NOT say that. Please take back that absurd accusation of bigotry and shortsightedness form my part.

The vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of Catholic priests would rather cut their own arms off than molest a child. The incident of pedophile priests in Catholicism is not more than that, per capita, of any other group leadership--even Mormons. Even Boy Scouts. Even American Atheist youth organizations. Sorry, but it's not.

I agree with this 100%

The scandal isn't that there are so many. It is that they were committed by men who not only are seen as "better,'

WRONG. The scandal is that the institution AS A WHOLE, including the Pope and all the Cardinals, were ACCESSORIES TO THE CRIMES. They protected the rapists, they enabled them, and they took active measures to allow them to continue raping. THAT's the scandal.

If any secular institution had done that,it would have been torn to shreds.

The added scandal...and this is what has come back to bite Catholics where it hurts the worst...is that the church didn't deal with it; it covered it up. When you try to hide rotten meat under your bed, it simply stinks worse than if you had thrown it away in the first place, and that's the mistake the church made; they didn't deal with the mess when it happened.

That's not the added scandal. That's THE scandal. That's the CRIME.

I'm not saying that the Pope can utterly stop ALL child rapes.

He can't STOP them at all. The most he can do is make sure that the rapist is dealt with appropriately...and that is NOT by transferring him to another diocese. That's where the church abandoned its responsibility.

Correct. And by NOT transferring him to another location, by not GIVING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAPE AGAIN, the Pope would have STOPPED those subsequent rapes at the new dioceses from happening. He is RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE RAPES.

[dianaiad]

Ok, give me the name of a person who has the power to prevent more child rapes than the Pope.

You.

Ok, the Pope becomes aware that a priest molested a child. He has two choices. 1) Notify the authorities and have the pedophile arrested, or 2) he can use his influence to relocate the priest elsewhere.

If he chooses option 1, the pedophile will go to jail and will not be able to rape any children for the next 30 years. If he chooses option 2, the priest will rape another 200 children over the next 30 years.

By choosing option 1, the Pope would have prevented 200 rapes from happening. Simply by picking up the phone and dialing 911.

Now, I've outlined in detail an example of how the Pope could prevent 200 child rapes.

This is not a hypothetical scenario by the way. Read {url=http://abcnews.go.com/WN/TheLaw/pope-de ... d=10200159]this[/url].

Yet, you claim that I have the ability to prevent more rapes than the Pope. Please explain by exactly what method I would be able to prevent more than 200 rapes.[/quote]


The same method the Pope would use, plus your power as a parent, plus your power as a member of a community that has kids in it, plus your personal ability to serve in volunteer positions that would ensure that a child molester did not take advantage of the kids, because those kids are not in his care, but yours.

The Pope doesn't do the 911 call, notachance. By the time HE hears about it, the lawsuits have already been filed.

[AquinasD]

Who would you change, and how?

I would change the Pope from implementing a policy of protecting pedophiles to a policy of exposing them and bringing them to justice. This would literally save thousands of children from being raped.

The Pope has implemented such a policy? I'm curious, could you please give me evidence that this is the case? Like, some official policy that says "When you find a priest molesting children, protect him at all costs."

There isn't any other individual you could change in any way, that would reduce the number of children being raped to a greater degree.

I don't know. There are people who actually actively perpetuate the sex trafficking of children. You haven't shown that the Pope does anything to help perpetuate child molestation or even to not work against it. You have stated it, as if it's obvious and common knowledge, but I'm asking for evidence of this.

Was the Pope aware of the child raping going on, yes or no? Did he have the power to stop it, yes or no? Did he stop it, yes or no?

It's your role to prove that the Pope knew about it and could do more than was already being done by the time the Pope was aware of any specific case (i.e. removing those priests from service and contacting the authorities).

He's the boss of Catholicism. It's ultimately his responsibility.

In an extremely tenuous sense. If I went to McDonald's and got poor service, is it the CEO's fault? Perhaps, but only in the case that the CEO was enforcing a policy that wouldn't remove employees who give poor service from the employment of McDonald's.

An evil institution is one which actively supports the raping of children. That's how I define evil. By "institution" in this case I mean every member of the Clergy. Kinda like when I say "the Nazi institution is evil" I mean "Every active member of the Nazi party" is evil.

Really? I know some priests, and they aren't engaged in any secret society that actively advocate the rape of children. Perhaps you travel in such circles; in that case, could you please relate your experiences that confirm such a conspiracy?

Of course you would find the raping of thousands of children trivial. To you it's no big deal. You can shrug your shoulders and say "Eh, we're not perfect. What the heck, nobody's perfect". That's why you are a Catholic.

Please, notachance, let us both speak to each other like adults. There was once a time when such juvenile ad hominem could impress, but now it is just embarrassing.

What I said is that the fact of the presence of sin in the Church is a trivial point, and does nothing to establish that the Church is essentially evil or that it's teachings are incorrect.

I am not being blas about child molestation, and your insinuation that I am is offensive, especially since it would take the most cynical misinterpreting of what I have said to even claim to have found such a thing in what I'm saying.

What are you even holding this discussion for? Are you venting your anger? Seeking to prove me wrong? Trying to reinforce your prejudices? Or to find an understanding about why some might disagree with you?

[McCulloch]

The scandal isn't that there are so many. It is that they were committed by men who not only are seen as "better,' but who have unusual access to their victims.

I disagree. The scandal was the Roman Catholic hierarchy's response to the charges. They did not report abuse allegations to the appropriate authorities, they reassigned priests without taking action to limit their access to minors, they did more to hush up the problem than they did to deal with the victims. They did virtually nothing to warn parishioners when a known pedophile was assigned to be their church's confessor. They have side-stepped their collective responsibility by allowing local parishes to declare bankruptcy rather than face responsibility for their lack of oversight.

Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese. On December 13, 2002 Pope John Paul II accepted Law's resignation as Archbishop and reassigned him to an administrative position in the Roman Curia naming him archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, and he later presided at one of the Pope's funeral masses.
Source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_s ... efrockings

Yes, the Roman Catholic church did eventually respond to the crisis. Too little, too late. Even now there is a significant lack of cooperation from the church in criminal investigations. In California, for example, the archdiocese has sought to block the disclosure of confidential counseling records on two priests arguing that such action would violate their First Amendment right on religious protection. They are using their holy orders to protect accused perpetrators!

The Roman Catholic Church has not been vigilant enough or fast enough in responding to the problem of sexual abuse by priests.

[notachance]

Diana, has there ever been a time in your life when you KNEW somebody was raping a child that night, you had the power to stop him, but didn't?

Please read the newspaper articles linked at the top of this thread.

Ask yourself how the Pope will answer that question when St Peter asks him.

[notachance]

Who would you change, and how?

I would change the Pope from implementing a policy of protecting pedophiles to a policy of exposing them and bringing them to justice. This would literally save thousands of children from being raped.

The Pope has implemented such a policy? I'm curious, could you please give me evidence that this is the case? Like, some official policy that says "When you find a priest molesting children, protect him at all costs."

Please read the links to the newspaper articles at top of thread.

There isn't any other individual you could change in any way, that would reduce the number of children being raped to a greater degree.

I don't know. There are people who actually actively perpetuate the sex trafficking of children. You haven't shown that the Pope does anything to help perpetuate child molestation or even to not work against it. You have stated it, as if it's obvious and common knowledge, but I'm asking for evidence of this.

Read the newspaper articles linked above.

Was the Pope aware of the child raping going on, yes or no? Did he have the power to stop it, yes or no? Did he stop it, yes or no?

It's your role to prove that the Pope knew about it and could do more than was already being done by the time the Pope was aware of any specific case (i.e. removing those priests from service and contacting the authorities).

READ THE ACTUAL NEWSPAPER ARTICLES!!!!

He's the boss of Catholicism. It's ultimately his responsibility.

In an extremely tenuous sense. If I went to McDonald's and got poor service, is it the CEO's fault? Perhaps, but only in the case that the CEO was enforcing a policy that wouldn't remove employees who give poor service from the employment of McDonald's.

If you go to Macdonalds and the person working there RAPES you, and instead of reporting him to the authorities, the CEO assigns him to a different MacDonalds where he rapes another 50 people, and when that happens the CEO AGAIn instead of calling the police moves him to another MacDonalds where the guy rapes another 150 people, and if this wasn't the only case but one of several, all of which the CEO was aware of, then YES, it would be the CEO's fault. He should go to jail. Read the newspaper articles above, Aquinas.

An evil institution is one which actively supports the raping of children. That's how I define evil. By "institution" in this case I mean every member of the Clergy. Kinda like when I say "the Nazi institution is evil" I mean "Every active member of the Nazi party" is evil.

Really? I know some priests, and they aren't engaged in any secret society that actively advocate the rape of children. Perhaps you travel in such circles; in that case, could you please relate your experiences that confirm such a conspiracy?

PLEASE READ THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES! Your ignorance of something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. Come on!

Of course you would find the raping of thousands of children trivial. To you it's no big deal. You can shrug your shoulders and say "Eh, we're not perfect. What the heck, nobody's perfect". That's why you are a Catholic.

Please, notachance, let us both speak to each other like adults. There was once a time when such juvenile ad hominem could impress, but now it is just embarrassing.

What I said is that the fact of the presence of sin in the Church is a trivial point, and does nothing to establish that the Church is essentially evil or that it's teachings are incorrect.

Actually, YES. The presence of "sin" as you call it, or crime as I call it, DOES establish that it is evil. Why would you call anybody evil, other than because he does evil stuff?

I am not being blas about child molestation, and your insinuation that I am is offensive, especially since it would take the most cynical misinterpreting of what I have said to even claim to have found such a thing in what I'm saying.

What are you even holding this discussion for? Are you venting your anger? Seeking to prove me wrong? Trying to reinforce your prejudices? Or to find an understanding about why some might disagree with you?

Stop trying to analyze me as a cheap trick to try to change the subject. I have a righteous moral outrage against those who rape children. It's perfectly justified, rational and reasonable.