Really? Globally, you mean? Or in the US? or where? And where did you get this info? (not saying it isn’t true, I really have no idea. It just surprised me.)
Yes, and this atheist has regular infusions of the works of Robert Heinlein and Kurt Vonnegut to keep things in perspective.
This atheist also has two Catholic parents he loves very much.
I empathize with their anger and pain over this whole situation, as I do with other Catholics who feel betrayed by the hierarchy. I agree with very little that is taught by their church (or any church, for that matter), but it is wrenching to see people I care about hurt so deeply over something they had no control over. They weren’t aware of massive cover-ups before this crap so recently came to light. It’s probably a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of Catholics didn’t know about this either.
happyheathen, as others have pointed out, you opened the thread in the Pit. And you opened it with a very inflammatory OP. How DARE you tar members of my family- good, decent people- with the Nazi brush because they weren’t aware of the (frankly) criminal activity of some of the clergy?
I want to know what organizations you belong to, and I’d like to hold you responsible for any transgressions committed by its members and leaders.
In case you haven’t heard, the Catholic Church hierarchy is not very keen on explaining its actions to the laity. It is not a democratic organization open to review by its members. Well, unfortunately, its members are finding out some very ugly things. Too bad the leadership chose to cover it up. It would have been far better if they were open about it, for all concerned.
Another thing, happyheathen, most atheists or pagans I know have a “live and let live” attitude. What the fuck is up with this Catholic bashing?
Let’s see…
First, because I was aware of the situation, but did not stop it, I’m to blame for the rape of the children?
After the Pope’s ‘The Devil Made Them Do It’ pronouncement fell flat, I’m sure they would like to know they can blame it all on me!
Second - read the OP! my comparison was to the German people, not the Nazis - I’ll let you find the first reply to conclude ‘German=Nazi’ - my surname is german, and I can make the distinction between the groups, just as I can differentiate between those who committed the crimes, those who conspired to conceal them, and those who had suspicions, but did not push the issue.
Jester - great start! unfortunately, human interactions do not usually lend themselves to logic tables.
Guin - believe it or not, I have a great deal of sympathy for you - perhaps you should save yourself grief by adding me to your ‘IGNORE’ list.
all - I started this thread in the Pit because I expected some pain being expressed. I also expected that, at least a few, would confirm that they, too, were aware of the situation, but maybe not the extent of it. (I was somewhat surprised by the magnitude - and horrified that the Church had kept records for 40 years, but never moved to prosecute cases - in either civil or eccleiastical venues).
oh yes:
Pagan - member of a religion not recognized as acceptable
Heathen - one who has no religious convictions (may or may not have spiritual beliefs)
Atheist - one whose religion and/or spiritual beliefs do not include deity/dieties.
These are very different concepts. Jester these concepts also do not translate well into Logical schema.
Those unable to differentiate amongst them would do well not use any of the terms.
And, as I’m too lazy to review my posts to find it, could someone look up the National Catholic Reporter’s series of exposes on the subject? Either no one reads that publication, or BUNCHES of people decided to ignore the matter.
Sorry, while killing the messanger remains popular, it still does not solve the problem reported.
One last thing:
because you MAY flame, it is not REQUIRED that you flame.
"if this thread continues (like, say the next 2 posts) to generate more heat than light, please close it. "
Translating from polite speak to RealSpeak:
“Mods, if I start getting flamed, please save my ass.”
:rolleyes:
Oh, let’s; shall we?
Yes. It’s called “accessory after the fact” for the one’s you supposedly knew about that already occurred and “accessory before the fact” for the ones that occurred after you began protecting the molestors.
Heck, you blamed it on all Catholics! What’s the difference? Surely, it’s merely a difference of degree. Degree of being a moron, that is.
Here’s the deal, buster; you equated all German people of that era with Nazi collaborators. You also equated all Catholics with those who covered-up the molestations.
Actually, in constructing a legal case, they really do. You, on the other hand, don’t.
Or better yet, YOU could quit posting bullshit.
Yeah, right. Board’s not big enough for the rollseye required here. You don’t really expect someone to jump up and admit to a freaking vile crime like child molestation, do you? If you do, you’re a far bigger fool than your posts thus far make you to be.
You really do need to learn how to read past the first few words listed in a dictionary definition. There are more words after that. And, yes, they actually have a bearing on the word being defined.
Around these parts (the SDMB), it’s considered bad form, if not trollish behaviour, to refuse to back up an assertion.
What VALID, TRUE message have you brought here? I, along with others, have asked you to substantiate your assertion. You have failed to do that.
Same goes for being a bigoted asshole. So, why are one?
To my assertion that the majority of professing Christians are Catholics, you replied:
A fair question. According to 22 percent of professing Christians in America are Catholics. The number of Catholics worldwide is estimated at 1 billion (the number of Christians is estimated at 2 billion), but the number of Christians is only about 33 percent of religious adherants worldwide. This according to http://www.adherants.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html.
(For some reason this page doesn’t display on the link. But if you cut and paste the URL it works.)
There are more Catholics than other Christian adherants, but by a plurality, not a majority. I used the wrong word.
Nearly 13 years ago, a made for television movie explored a true case (brought to light 19 years ago, occuring 19-24 years ago) in which a Louisiana archdiocese did the hush-up, pay-off, transfer, “counseling” thing with a priest who was accused of molesting scores upon scores of altar boys in every single parish where he served. So the idea of molesting priests has been within the realm of believable throught for many. many years.
Yet, (as happyheathen may have been able to point out more clearly were he not so overburdened with general anti-Catholic vitriol) there never seemed to be a question from the laity at large as to whether or not cases like that were occuring in their parishes and archdioceses. There was no hue and cry, and within the structure of the church, this should have been something that deserved a huge hue and cry. Parents came out in droves to picket when the dioceses wanted to close their small parish schools which were losing money left and right, but their kids could go to another school, another Catholic school, even. It would be very hard to say that having to go to another school would not cause them irreperable harm.
But people who are molested as kids lose a measure of innocence, trust, self-worth and personal security which is never fully regained, and tends to haunt them throughout their lives, and no one can argue that. And even though people knew that there were priests who were molesting and that there were efforts by the church to keep that information as quiet and undercover as possible they never raised a stink. I’d strap on a sign and protest outside the diocesan headquarters much more quickly to find out if my priests were safe around my children than to keep a school open, but no one ever did.
And that makes me wonder – why?
Mr. Heathen, need I remind you that you are hardly the sort of person who should be lecturing down to people? Especially about “intelligent” or “rational” commentary, both of which are concepts that seem to be alien to you?
Conversely: Because you MAY post your bigoted, small-minded, self-righteous tripe, it is not REQUIRED that you post your bigoted, small-minded, self-righteous tripe.
I wrote:
When I should have said:
** happyheathen**, I–as well as many others here, have attempted to point out to you the flaws in your logic. However, it has recently been brought to my attention that such a cause is hopeless due to the large void between your ears. Reasoned discourse simply goes in one ear and dies of lonliness. Allow me, if you will, to point out a few of my favorite gems of happy heathen ignorance
So, right off the bat you claim that willfully blinding yourself to the situation marks you as a fellow pedophile. And yet you knowingly ignoring the situation is acceptable?
Oh–now I see. You didn’t need to do anything since we weren’t “your kind”. Thanks for making it perfectly clear what a hateful bastard you are.
And isn’t it good to know that your opinions on the subject are based on so much real world knowledge and experience. A couple newspaper articles and one visit to a church. Good thing you were an adult when you visited, otherwise the congregation might have held you down and cornholed you.
I was especially impressed with how, when those responding called you on your claim that you “knew” what was going on, you come back with this…
Hello?! happy heathen, paging happy heathen. Isn’t that YOUR WHOLE FUCKING POINT?
Now, I’m of the mind that you don’t really believe this bullshit you’re spewing. Maybe you have personal issues with the church or maybe you are just afraid to back down at this point. Hell, maybe a catholic girl spit in your face when she caught you peeking in her window. Whatever–the point is that I (and others here too I’m sure) am assuming that you MUST have issues because it’s just too sad to imagine a person who actually believes that your posts in this thread so far constitute a coherent argument.
bella
Damn, I was so peeved that I posted “[…] one’s […]” when it should read “[…] ones […]”
Ditto for “So, why are one?” That should read “So, why are you one?”
In case you miss someone else saying it, we are not your research lackeys. We are not here to go fuddling around with old magazines/newspapers in am attempt to somehow bolster your (incredibly weak, and in some places contradictory, as has been shown by Jester et al) argument. You want a cite, find it your fucking SELF.
I think belladonna put it as simply as it can be put (assuming that I’m comprehending after 4 hours of sleep and having driven 400+ miles last night): your awareness of the practice and apparent inaction on said practice makes you guilty. In other words, you are a hypocrite.
tlw, you make essentially the same point happyhypocrite makes, but in a more polite form, so I will take a stab at addressing it politely. We are having great fun attacking the messenger, but that doesn’t validate his message.
I think you’re overstating the knowledge of the problem. Catholics were as ignorant as non-Catholics, because it was the exact same coverup.
First, I think most people (rightly or wrongly) feel that TV movies generally reflect the unusual, strange, bizarre, and rare cases. And that TV movies “based on a true story” often sensationalize that story. If we responded to every TV movie as if it represented a widespread problem, that would be a lot of wild goose chases. So, how were we supposed to know that this particular TV movie was one we should give credence to?
You are certainly correct that Catholics (and non-Catholics) have known that the potential for priestly abuse existed. That is quite different from knowing of cases where it did exist. There is also the potential for gym teachers to abuse their students, but we don’t assume as a matter of course that every gym teacher does that. We address cases as we learn of them.
And that requires us to learn of them.
One of the problems caused by this coverup is we can’t evaluate whether priestly pedophilia is more prevalent than pedophilia in society at large. That’s too bad, because it could be important to our response. Let me pick a figure (which I think overstates the case): 10% of priests commit pedophilia. If no two pedophile priests are assigned to the same parish simultaneously (many parishes have multiple priests), then at a given time 90% of Catholics do not have a pedophile priest in their parish. That is, 90% of us have no first hand knowledge of the problem at all.
Of course, if pedophile priest assignments ever overlap significantly, there are even more unaware Catholics. I’ve neglected to talk about reassignment. How widespread was reassignment? Again, we don’t know. Let’s say that pedophile priests were reassigned an average of 5 times in their career. And let’s say that the church hierarchy took pains to make sure that the same parish never had a second pedophile. How many years would it take for 50% of the parishes to have a pedophile priest assigned to them? What is the turnover in membership? How long are our memories?
Hopefully, you begin to see that it is quite reasonable that many (no, most) Catholics had no knowledge of any priestly abuse. If not, consider: how many victims does an average priestly pedophile have in a parish? In a parish of 5000 families, does he abuse 20 children? 50? How many families does that affect? 1%? Less?
Now, remember theres a coverup. If the priest doesn’t tell, and the hierarchy doesn’t tell, then the laity can only learn about the abuse from victims and thier families. I don’t have a cite, but I don’t think that people broadcast cases of abuse to their friends all that often (and consider that in a Catholic parish, there are many, many families that don’t even know each other). It’s probably most likely that the family just “doesn’t tell” or leaves the church, thus involuntarily perpetuating the coverup.
It is quite reasonable to believe Catholics when they say “I didn’t know”. A vast number of us didn’t know, and didn’t have any way to know. Remember the coverup–we couldn’t just ask our priest or bishop. And our outrage now is genuine, not an act that’s just part of the coverup.
In this case, the Catholic laity probably belongs on the long list of victims, along with the actual abuse victims, their families, the numerous innocent priests, the Church’s moral authority, and the truth.
kg m²/s²
My younger brother used to crack me up with his definiton of “based on a true story.”
[quote]
The following story takes place in San Francisco, California, and concerns interactions between different members of the human species.
Facts on which it’s based:
[ul][li]There is a city and county named San Francisco[]Said City and County is in California[]There are also different members of the human species in said city and county.[/ul][/li]
Fiction in the story:
[ul][li]Every freaking word uttered.[/ul][/li][/quote]
I personally don’t like putting people on ignore, no matter what. If our goal is to fight ignorance, ignoring it will not help. It will only make it worse.
:rolleyes:
At least one person did.
Woah! That’s dedication.
Now, not to minimize what he experienced as a child, but is anyone else a bit annoyed by this? He didn’t approach the church for help until after he heard he could get money out of it? He’ll stop his “crusade” if the church will pay him some cash? His entire life was ruined by this one experience?
I guess if he was out there trying to get policy changed or spread awareness, I’d be more supportive. The fact is though that this smacks of extortion and that rankles me. And why would the church, in this instance, be liable anyway? He was molested, he didn’t report it, his life went on. Had he been molested by a taxi driver, would he be suing the Secretary of Transportion? I feel for him. Childhood trauma sucks and we should all be so lucky to avoid it, but it happens. Letting it bother you to the point where your entire life is ruined seems like overkill.
bella
Huge sigh of relief
And unfortunately for you, happyheathen, debates do lend themselves to logic. This is not a random meeting at a coffeehouse; it is a debate (or at least it is trying desperately to be one), and because of that, an effective point is gotten across through arguments.
Arguments are constructed of premises, which lead to conclusions. And the rules that define whether the premises match the conclusion are, guess what: logic.
Of course, there’s no reason to think that you didn’t know this, since I thought I made it pretty clear. Your argument was flawed by logical rules of debate, hence you are wrong. But you still refuse to accept that, and listen to reason.
And remember what I said about refusing to listen to reason? So now, I have no choice but to say…
(H*R)–>CFM (given)
H (proven last post)
R (proven this post)
(H*R) (conjunction 2, 3)
CFM (Modus Ponens 1, 4)
So, happyheathen, you are being a complete fucking moron. But I’d like to continue. You have been shown time and time again that you are being a CFM, but you don’t care (DC). I would like to theorize that if you both are being a CFM and don’t care, then you are a troll (T). And if you are being a troll, then debating with you is absolutely worthless (W). Observe…
(CFM*DC)–>T (given)
T–>W (given)
CFM*DC (given)
T (modus ponens 1, 3)
W (modus ponens 2, 4)
So guess what, happyheathen. Debating with you is absolutely worthless, and I’m going to stop right now. I highly recommend that everyone else do the same, and instead continue to have a civil debate over the matter, say with someone like tlw, who shows a basic understanding about how not to be a Complete Fucking Moron.
Now for God’s sake, move on.