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.

[AquinasD]

Read the newspaper articles linked above.

I've read the newspaper articles linked. I have also read others over the years, and based on what has been brought forth, I still see no evidence of;

1) The Pope's personal knowledge and involvement in cases that he acted wrongly

2) That the Pope (even when he wasn't yet Pope) could have enforced any policy that wouldn't be redundant to policies already in play by the time he gained any knowledge of specific cases, or that would require his knowing something to be the fact when it hadn't yet been warranted to be

3) A vast secret conspiracy by the Catholic Church to host a sex trafficking ring known by every priest, bishop, and Vatican official (it's probably more likely that one simply doesn't exist)

4) Systemic and institutional cover-up that extends beyond a few isolated individuals

Your ignorance of something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. Come on!

Allow me to clarify; are you really meaning to say you believe that the Catholic Church, or at least within the Catholic Church, there exists a widespread and distributed system of sexual trafficking?

You're confessing to be a conspiracy theorist?

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?

So your argument looks like this;

1) The Catholic Church includes members who are evil

2) These members do evil things

3) Therefore, the Catholic Church is evil

Fallacy of composition, I think.

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.

I agree that there is such a thing as righteous moral outrage, but what you are exemplifying is an unreasonable and accusatory tone against me with insinuations against my moral character. Further, you have not provided evidence and furnished argument that establishes your claims about the essentially evil nature of the Catholic Church. You have acted the part of outrage, to be sure, but I do not see any preponderance of clear, rational thinking.

[notachance]

Ironic that you would call it a which hunt, considering it that the term was coined by Catholics who burned women alive for no reason whatsoever.

Actually, the term 'witch hunt' was first used in 1885, and is defined by every dictionary I've ever seen as a hunt for someone/thing that is considered to be subversive, traitorous or evil...usually on slim to no evidence. It was used mostly when referring to the hunt for 'subversive' communists in Germany, Europe generally, and the USA.

False statement (A sin, according to your beliefs). A witch hunt is when you HUNT A WITCH. Which is what Catholics would do. Please be honest.

Notachance, do I REALLY have to quote the dictionary definitions and websites? Really? The phrase 'witch hunt' as it is used today (and in the way I used it) didn't even exist before 1885. Please don't make me pull out the OED.

Yes, the term "witch hunt" has come to be used today as a metaphor for an ACTUAL witch hunt, which is the ACT OF HUNTING WITCHES. I can't believe you're confused about this.

Thank you for reminding us all that this latest one, is just the most recent of a loooong list of evil things these perverts did.

Wow, that is the most convoluted admission of error I think I've ever seen.

Come again? I don't understand. Are you denying extensive atrocities committed by the Catholic Church?

Now, regarding the heart of your post, I have three things to say. First, believe it or not I didn't ask for a "priest who was convicted and subsequently found innocent" because I had some Catholic-style hidden agenda.

Oh, notachance, your agenda isn't hidden AT all.

true that.

I asked for that specifically, as opposed to "a priest who was ALMOST convicted" or "convicted but NOT exonerated", because "a priest who was actually convicted and subsequently found innocent" is what it would take to prove your point. I take it that you cannot prove your point.

The problem is that the CHURCH does not handle imprisonment or legal matters.

True. They cannot convict a person and incarcerate them. But they can do the opposite - PREVENT a person from being tried, convicted and incarcerated. That's what they did. That's why they're evil.

They did do that. They haven't done that, or anything close to that, for over ten years.

I truly don't understand you Diana. Don't you believe that lying is a sin? Do you truly have ZERO interest in getting into heaven? Why are you doing this to yourself? Do you ENJOY wailing and gnashing your teeth?

Go here: http://wonkette.com/446540/popes-pedoph ... pedophilia

The priest that the Pope appointed to be IN CHARGE OF INVESTIGATING PEDOPHILIA CASES was just arrested for, you guessed it, raping children.

Go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cath ... by_country

Just read up on recent scandals. Please, is it truly worth it to condemn your soul to eternal torment just for the purpose of protecting some child rapists?

Just tell the the truth Diana, come on!

That's why I said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. NOW, simply being accused is enough to destroy a priest; no matter how wild, uncorroborated, off-the-wall or strange the accusation, simply being accused is conviction. I fail to see how this manner of handling things helps the true abuse victims in any way.

So do you consider it a wild uncorroborated, off-the-wall accusation when the police wiretap the priest in charge of investigating child rape, and catch him transacting the purchase of a young boy with a local drug dealer? What should we do, protect the children from the rapist, or protect the rapist from the mean police officers?

Please note; the priest who spent four years as a 'non-person' in terms of his priesthood calling, without income or place to live, was punished EXACTLY the way he would have been had he actually been jailed.

Emmm.... NO????? Deprivation of income and housing is NOT the exact same thing as incarceration.

You need to read more carefully.

He was treated exactly the same way, by the church, as he would have been treated, BY THE CHURCH, had he actually been tried, convicted, and jailed. The church did everything to him that they would have done to a priest who was actually proven guilty.

Wow. They're really misguided. They should treat the POPE like that, isntead of scapegoating an innocent man. Goes to show how morally corrupt they are. Thanks for clarifying your point and agreeing with me on how evil these people are!

As well, Fr. McRae's story would tell you what the realities are; he's been in prison for over 16 years, maintaining his own innocence, passing lie detector test after examination, while his accusers settled for lots and lots....and lots....of money. He was offered a plea deal; had he pled guilty, he would have served three years. if he had admitted guilt at any time, he could have been treated far better in prison than he has been, and most probably been out on parole long ago.

He did not, and has not, and says that he will not admit to being guilty of a crime he didn't commit.

Would YOU maintain your own innocence in the face of the sort of pressure he's had to deal with? If you knew that, simply by pleading guilty to a crime everybody already thinks you are guilty of , and for which you are being punished to the fullest extent, you could walk out of the prison gates and be free, would YOU still claim innocence?

Never mind that. If you knew you were stuck there, and the only difference between sleeping 8 to a two man cell (where your fellow prisoners know that you were convicted as a child molester) and a move to a place where you only had to share a cell with one other man, would you still maintain your innocence?

If you knew that the only thing standing between you and freedom was one word, 'guilty,' what would make you refrain from saying it?

Very touching. I'd have taken the easy way out even though I'm innocent. Just like the fact that my taking the easy way out would not prove that I was guilty, the fact that he's being stubborn doesn't prove that he's innocent.

No. His passing lie detector tests and the evidence (or lack of same) does.

Lie detectors can be beat, which is why they are not admissible in court. Priests are very good at lying.

And it SHOULD 'touch' you. What happened to the ideal of justice that says it is better that ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be convicted? Or does that apply only to NON theists?

If this man is innocent, then I will eventually get round to feeling bad for him. There's a long waiting list for my sympathy. Right now I'm busy feeling bad for all the children raped by priests.

And as I mentioned. There is one thing that could have been done to avoid that innocent man from going to jail: The Catholic Church could have NOT created an environment where people rightfully assume that they are all rapists.

Either way, if I were a good and honest priest and discovered that Catholicism is nothing more than a glorified pedophile ring supported from the very top, I would immediately get the hell out of there. Even if that guy is innocent, the reason that he is in jail is partly because he doesn't think that child rape is as big a deal as I do.

That's quite an assumption. He's innocent, and it doesn't matter because he's a priest and DESERVES it?

He is as innocent as a member of Al-quaeda who never got round to participating in a suicide bombing. He is an active member of an institution that rapes children.

You are exposing your own bias and bigotry a little too much here, notachance.

Definitely my bias. I am biased against child rapists. It's your prerogative to call that bias "bigotry".

If I knew my colleagues at work raped children in the office and I didn't quit my job, and then one day the FBI arrests everybody including me even though I never did any raping, then tough luck for me.

.....and if the only thing you did was quit your job, they should jail you and give you MORE time. But...what if you did NOT know? Most priests...indeed, the vast, VAST majority of them, are not, and do not serve with, child abusers.

Well, the vast majority of them do not deserve to be in jail. Only all the cardinals and the Pope. But if some of the ones who choose to stay in harm's way - in the middle of a battle against child rape - end up wrongfully accused of being rapists themselves... cry me a river.

So...let's see. There have been child abusers found in every area of life; every organization, every church, every club, every career field; cops, judges, teachers, youth counselors, volunteers of every type, politicians, doctors, janitors, field workers and all manner of businesses; employed and unemployed, male and female.

I absolutely guarantee you that no matter what you do for a living, where you volunteer, where you went to school, within your neighborhood...there IS a child abuser. Somewhere.

Agreed. It's not about the presence of single child abusers. It's about the institution actively supporting rape

So...how many things CAN you quit before you simply have to check out of the human race, notachance?

I do not belong to any organization that actively supports rape, so I don't need to quit anything

Perhaps the real solution isn't to QUIT, but to join; after all, if YOU are doing the job, a child abuser is NOT.

Good idea! Let's join Al-Quaeda. If you are doing the job, a suicide bomber is not!

Let's see; according to the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, in the last half of the twentieth century (that's fifty years, by the way) between 3 to 6% of priests have been accused of child abuse. That's three to six men out of a hundred priests.

That figure is from www.philvaz.com. A website that openly advertises itself as a "Evangelical Catholic Apologetics" website. That's a the title of their site, quoted verbatim. That's as reliable a testimony of the status of Catholicism as a video by Bin Laden is for the status of Al Quaeda.

Let us look at some other statistics. By FAR the largest group of child abusers are...parents. Parents are responsible for 80% of all child abuse, whatever its nature. Are you going to quit being a parent? Quit being a family member?

Nonsensical and absurd. There isn't an institutional organization with tremendous influence and billions of dollars called "Parents". If there was one, and it actively supported child rape, I would most definitely demand its abolishment.

According to Charol Shakeshaft, who prepared a report on child abuse in the schools for the US Department of education, what she found led her to claim that... "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

It is thought that, not that 3 to 6% of teachers commit abuse, but that almost 10% of all school children SUFFER abuse at the hands of their teachers. That takes a lot more than 3% of the teachers.

So. Should all teachers quit their jobs, notachance?

Would you like to, y'know, take a couple of steps BACK?

Oh Diana, Diana, Diana. You'd have such an amazing argument, if only it were based on reality and not on the opinion of a SINGLE PERSON INTHE WORLD, namely Charol Shareshaft, who herself admits "Currently, there is no single agency that tracks such incidents. And only a few national surveys, as of 2002, had been conducted on the subject of teacher-student sex"and most of them were sexual harassment studies."

I thought you were forceful in trying to convince me of your beliefs in Jesus, but that's nothing compared to how forceful, determined, and indomitable you are when it comes to defending child rapists.

You will stop at nothing! No argument is too absurd for you. No evidence too tenuous. No lie too blatant.

I'd never heard of Fr. McRae before yesterday. However, I am VERY familiar with the McMartin case, and so....yeah, I have a real problem with what's happening right now. I'm asking you to step back away from the hysteria; yeah, early Catholics engaged in witch hunts (not quite as much as the early Protestants did, but, well....) how does that excuse YOU from participating in this one?

How do I excuse my adversity to the Catholic church, as compared to Catholics murdering innocent women? Well, I excuse it like this: Murdering innocent women is wrong. Condemning child rape is right.

You don't see the similarity between the medieval hunt for witches and what YOU are doing?

No. I am condemning an institution that is ACTUALLY doing something wrong. And besides I do NOT propose that we kill anybody. I just propose that we give the Pope and the Cardinals their day in court. It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest a trial when there is overwhelming evidence that a crime has been perpetrated.

[notachance]

So your argument looks like this;

1) The Catholic Church includes members who are evil

2) These members do evil things

3) Therefore, the Catholic Church is evil

Nope. My argument looks like this:

1) The leaders of the Catholic Church are evil

2) Therefore they are evil

3) Therefore they are evil

I don't expect you to agree with me that raping children is evil.

[I AM ALL I AM]

G'day.

If the pope isn't guilty of covering up the crimes of child rapists, why was there a petition for immunity in the U.S.A. and why was it granted ?

President Bush Grants Pope Immunity From Molestation Lawsuits

Everyone knows Bush gave Pope immunity from molestation charges, right? Well let me remind some of yall who might not have known. This was back in 2005.

ROME " The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI (search) of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in Monday's filing that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

continued at ... http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4977098961

Also, how can the president give out immunity, by what right ?

The politicians are as guilty as the catholic church of covering up the crime of child rape to avoid prosecution of the offenders.

[notachance]

G'day.

If the pope isn't guilty of covering up the crimes of child rapists, why was there a petition for immunity in the U.S.A. and why was it granted ?

President Bush Grants Pope Immunity From Molestation Lawsuits

Everyone knows Bush gave Pope immunity from molestation charges, right? Well let me remind some of yall who might not have known. This was back in 2005.

ROME " The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI (search) of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Peter Keisler said in Monday's filing that allowing the lawsuit to proceed would be "incompatible with the United States' foreign policy interests."

continued at ... http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.actio ... 4977098961

Also, how can the president give out immunity, by what right ?

The politicians are as guilty as the catholic church of covering up the crime of child rape to avoid prosecution of the offenders.

G'day to you!

I agree. The evidence is conclusive. The Catholic Church supports rape.

Every Catholic priest should have the words "Watch out, I might rape your son" tattooed on their forehead!

[AquinasD]

Nope. My argument looks like this:

1) The leaders of the Catholic Church are evil

2) Therefore they are evil

3) Therefore they are evil

That's a vastly different argument apart from your assertions about how the Catholic Church is systemically, institutionally evil, not to mention that you haven't demonstrated that "the leaders" of the Catholic Church host some conspiracy advocating child molestation.

I don't expect you to agree with me that raping children is evil.

This is too many offenses for me to believe you're interested in a reasonable discussion where we speak like adults.

I am knocking the dust off my sandals and moving on.

[notachance]

Nope. My argument looks like this:

1) The leaders of the Catholic Church are evil

2) Therefore they are evil

3) Therefore they are evil

That's a vastly different argument apart from your assertions about how the Catholic Church is systemically, institutionally evil, not to mention that you haven't demonstrated that "the leaders" of the Catholic Church host some conspiracy advocating child molestation.

It has been amply demonstrated. It's just that you were busy putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LA LA LA LA LA"

I don't expect you to agree with me that raping children is evil.

This is too many offenses for me to believe you're interested in a reasonable discussion where we speak like adults.

I am knocking the dust off my sandals and moving on.

Oh, ok! So you DO agree that rape is evil. So will you now stop funding an organization that promotes rape?

[Clownboat]

They did do that. They haven't done that, or anything close to that, for over ten years. That's why I said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. NOW, simply being accused is enough to destroy a priest; no matter how wild, uncorroborated, off-the-wall or strange the accusation, simply being accused is conviction. I fail to see how this manner of handling things helps the true abuse victims in any way.

If they are innocent, would not the god that they serve, if he were real, protect them? I would think so.

I absolutely guarantee you that no matter what you do for a living, where you volunteer, where you went to school, within your neighborhood...there IS a child abuser. Somewhere.

You have missed the mark. The cover up is the problem. As we all know, and you point out as if it means something, there are child abusers in all walks of life. We know this, so you can drop your strawman. Again, the problem is with the cover up.

[Clownboat]

Nope. My argument looks like this:

1) The leaders of the Catholic Church are evil

2) Therefore they are evil

3) Therefore they are evil

That's a vastly different argument apart from your assertions about how the Catholic Church is systemically, institutionally evil, not to mention that you haven't demonstrated that "the leaders" of the Catholic Church host some conspiracy advocating child molestation.

I don't expect you to agree with me that raping children is evil.

This is too many offenses for me to believe you're interested in a reasonable discussion where we speak like adults.

I am knocking the dust off my sandals and moving on.

Very wise. In my opinion, I would avoid fighting this battle in the future.

[dianaiad]

They did do that. They haven't done that, or anything close to that, for over ten years. That's why I said that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. NOW, simply being accused is enough to destroy a priest; no matter how wild, uncorroborated, off-the-wall or strange the accusation, simply being accused is conviction. I fail to see how this manner of handling things helps the true abuse victims in any way.

If they are innocent, would not the god that they serve, if he were real, protect them? I would think so.

Ask the McMartins that question.

Ask the early Mormons.

Ask the Jews.

Ask the Amish, the Quakers, some atheists, the women accused of being witches, the folks McCarthy went after--ask the people who wrote the constitution and figured that laws had to be passed in order to avoid such things.

.Oh, why don't you ask a man named Jesus Christ, who was supposed to have been perfect.....Or ask the people who believe that He was perfect and was tortured and crucified anyway.

.....and try really hard not to ask questions like that of people who have been through it and know better, OK?

I absolutely guarantee you that no matter what you do for a living, where you volunteer, where you went to school, within your neighborhood...there IS a child abuser. Somewhere.

You have missed the mark. The cover up is the problem. As we all know, and you point out as if it means something, there are child abusers in all walks of life. We know this, so you can drop your strawman. Again, the problem is with the cover up.

Hey,. I agree.

The problem isn't the cover up any more. What part of 'the pendulum has swung too far the other way" was difficult to understand?