# Goddammit Catholic Church, you just won't learn **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934 "2010-08-30T00:07:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/81 "2010-08-31T12:58:46Z")
> [@Lynn\_Bodoni](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s a double-standard that goes on on the SDMB where if a school board does it, it’s all “meh, it’s just another bad thing out there in the world.” But when it’s the RCC, it’s all "Goddamnit, Catholic Church, when will you ever learn to stop being so evil? > > School boards are, by their very nature, local. The RCC is global. The very NAME Catholic means “all encompassing” or “comprehensive”, and the RCC wants every human on the planet to convert to Catholicism, or at least abide by the teachings of the Catholic church…that is, they put restrictions on even the MENTION of birth control (other than natural family planning) and abortion in foreign aid, both from the US and the UN. There is no one worldwide group that oversees all school boards, but there IS one worldwide authority which oversees the RCC. And it is this very authority which is doing all the covering up and shuffling around which enables the criminals to get away with abuse. Tell me about it! Apparently, some people in this thread simply cannot understand this point. Bishops, sometimes even cardinals, knowing about or actually hiding abusive priests is equivalent to what in secular world hierarchy? State senators, representative, mayors or even police chiefs? That’s the story here dummies! If someone shows me a pattern in a certain state where someone pretty high up is covering up child abuse and moving teachers around, then I’ll get all riled up. Also, how the is “oh, it doesn’t happen anymore.” an excuse? The allegations are just coming out now, so we’re having a thread now. Since the Church handling this very clumsily, I don’t believe that this still isn’t going on at least in places where the Catholic Church is still very powerful. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/82 "2010-08-31T13:55:03Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You’re throwing in Father Ted, who used to come to the third grade class rooms and give us candy. Too easy. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/83 "2010-08-31T14:08:07Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > We had a case here in Vermont last year - a teacher was let go by his school for “inappropriate” behavior with kids. As part of the separation agreement, the school gave him a positive recommendation. He got another teaching position in the next county for the next school year. > > Sounds quite a bit like “quietly move him to another parish where nobody knows about him and hope for the best”, doesn’t it? I’d have to know what “inappropriate” entails before making that comparison. It’s not appropriate, for example, for a teacher to lose his temper and shove a student, but I can understand it happening as an isolated incident and the teacher not losing his career over it. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/84 "2010-08-31T15:05:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I’d have to know what “inappropriate” entails before making that comparison. It’s not appropriate, for example, for a teacher to lose his temper and shove a student, but I can understand it happening as an isolated incident and the teacher not losing his career over it. The problem I have with this reasoning is that these sorts of vaguely described incidents are the sort of thing where, the stated offense seems to be spurring a response that is far more draconian than would seem to be warranted. I have trouble accepting that a teacher has engaged in inappropriate behavior that justifies firing, but that same level of inappropriate behavior doesn’t merit going after their license. It may be only my prejudices, but it really does smack to me of a deal “if you leave without a struggle, we’ll cover for you with _some other school district_.” Which is the allegation that **BrotherCadfael** is making, and seems to be borne out by the AP study I linked upthread: schools are perfectly willing to pass on pedophile teachers, rather than make an effort to prevent the next child from being abused, too. For example: [Example #1](http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/education/stories/032510dnmetcedarhill.1e15fd587.html) > [@](#): > > A Cedar Hill High School teacher has resigned after she admitted sharing an inappropriate hug with a student, district officials say. > [@](#): > > Because the teacher’s resignation was accepted, she can retain her certification and move to another school district. Either the inappropriate hugging is worth someone’s job, or it’s a tempest in a teapot, dammit. And if it’s worth someone’s job - why the fuck did they allow her to retain her certification? [Example #2](http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-04-02/news/os-moody-sexy-student-text-messages-20100401_1_text-messages-band-director-female-student) > [@](#): > > A Winter Park band director admitted to school-district officials last month that he sent sexually charged text messages to one of his students, and said that it was all “an error in judgment.” Again - the teacher in question resigned - and that stopped any investigation, or any further punitive measures. > [@](#): > > No charges have been filed against Moody. Winter Park police have said that no victim came forward to file a complaint. A spokeswoman from Orange County Public Schools said the district ended its own investigation because Moody resigned. These are just two stories from the past year, which I knew where I could find links very quickly. No Googling involved, and these are incidents that actually got publicized. Whether you choose to accept that they are indicative of greater problems is up to you. I strongly suspect that for every incident of this nature that does get publicized, there are several others that are hushed up even more effectively. Quite frankly, I trust school boards, and administrations, about as far as I do the hierarchy of the RCC. I’m not going to pretend that I’ve offered proof that my mistrust is warranted, I do think that between the incidents I’ve brought forward, and the AP study I linked, the evidence is certainly suggestive. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/85 "2010-08-31T15:49:31Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > > You’re throwing in Father Ted, who used to come to the third grade class rooms and give us candy. > > Too easy. It took you long enough. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/86 "2010-08-31T17:01:04Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > > [@Steophan](#): > > > > if we’re accepting the 1.5% figure for abusive priests, that’s way below the figure for abusive parents or family members. > > Again, I don’t have figures either, but I highly doubt that. I can easily accept that more than 1.5% of parents abuse their kids with excessive physical and emotional punishment, but we’re talking about sexual abuse here, and no fucking way do I believe that more than 1.5% of ANY group besides priests and childfuckers do that. It’s absolutely true that most sexual abuse happens within the family. I don’t have the statistics, and as I’m posting from my phone I couldn’t link anyway, but I’m pretty certain that far more than 1.5% of people have been sexually abused. From purely anecdotal experience, I’d put the figure at ten times that, but that is probably high for the general population. If people really think I’m wrong, I’ll find a computer later this week and research. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/87 "2010-08-31T17:14:01Z")
Ok, I googled “prevalence of sexual assault” and one of the first results was a report on the NSPCC website, so I expect it’s trustworthy. It contains the following statistics. For the most rigorous definition of assault, that is unwanted penetration or forced masturbation before the age of 18, 4% for women and 2% for men. For the least rigorous, any unwanted sexual contact, the figures were 59% for women and 27% for men. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/88 "2010-08-31T17:43:22Z")
I’m sure you’re right, Steophan. I just had a visceral reaction to the 1.5 figure. It’s horrifically high, and I suspect it’s a fraction of the true number, as the majority of cases probably go unreported. Also, a family member might molest a small handful of children at most, while a priest can victimize literally dozens upon dozens over the course of his career. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/89 "2010-08-31T17:56:19Z")
> [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](#): > > This is a valid point. The Catholic Church is the biggest worldwide wholesaler of child molestation. But the retail uncles, teachers, doctors and pizza delivery guys are a bigger collective threat and story. > > In 1972 (or whatever) the RCC was busy hiding child molesters. That is evil, made more evil by their claim of moral superiority. But, your own family, your local school board, your police department and your medical association were doing the same thing. > > Think about it. It is 1968, some school teacher is caught having sex with the fifth graders. What do you think happened? I suspect that they gave him a letter of recommendation and sent him out of the state with a warning never ever to come back. > > The RCC story was broken open ten years ago (I give the Boston Globe credit). But nobody has yet done the hard work to bust open the story of how widespread covering up child molestation was everywhere not so long ago. No busting open is needed; those of us who lived through the transition know the story from beginning to end. But the equivalence here would be this: if the school boards were _still_ trying to cover up, not for the molesting teachers, but for those who covered their trail back in 1968 or 1982 or whenever. If there’s an organization besides the RCC that’s doing this in a big way, please name names. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/90 "2010-08-31T18:05:15Z")
Maybe you’re right about that, Cisco, I’m not googling any more stats. I feel ill enough after reading those. My point, that I may have made badly, is that this is not a problem mostly confined to the church, and it is indeed possible that the church is safer than many other places. Which is all intensely depressing, frankly. Oh, one last depressing point. In families, it is frequently the case that one family member covers up for an abuser. I’ve read threads on this board talking about this. Now I’m off to MPSIMS for kitty pics or something ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/91 "2010-08-31T19:31:41Z")
> [@heatmiserfl](#): > > Well, I viewed the wikipedia articles you linked and I challenge your ‘statistics’. > > 1. Why did you use only credible allegations but disregard substantiated allegations? I assume those are two different groups of priests which would bring up you’re kiddie-diddler rate to nearly4% as the link to the John Jay Report states. > > 2. Anyway, why should we unquestionably take numbers from a report by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops when the whole topic of this pitting concerns the secrecy of the Catholic Church? > > 3. And why are you comparing rates of children reporting sexual impropriety in public schools to rate of diddling priests? You should be comparing rates of diddling teachers to diddling priests. Furthermore, most priests don’t have extensive contact with children so a 4% rate of abusers is pretty damn high in my book. What you’d need to do is compare priests who have access to children to secular teachers. Then we can compare true rates of abusers. > > 4. I’m also waiting for your response to my earlier post regarding the 100X higher abuse rate in schools(elsewhere). You appear to have misquoted Carol Shakeshaft. > > 5. How does dying ‘fix’ the problem? It simply muddies the waters of guilt. That argument neither supports nor negates your position. Also, can you please stop using the Boy Scout excuse here? That’s an excuse used by the Catholic Church itself. Why are you using the Catholic Church’s excuses to support your position? Are you a bishop? :dubious: 1. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that. 2. Because it’s all we’ve got. It’s the most comprehensive study there is. Anything else is just speculation. If you’ve got a better source, show it to us. 3. I agree with that. I just couldn’t find those stats in my limited googling. What I did find, though, was that no more than 4% of priests have even been accused, let alone been guilty. And that includes the 25% of accused priests that had allegedly been with 15-17 kids. So the amount of kids touched by their priests is, I’m guessing, less than 1%. But kids in school? 9.6% have been harrassed or molested. Priests 1, Teachers 0. 4. I found the quote in multiple places. Perhaps it’s a misquote, but I see no evidence of that. Here’s a [.pdf](http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.pdf) of the study she wrote, though. Caution: it’s big. 5. Because there’s nothing left to do to a dead guy. There’s nothing anyone _can_ do. So where is the culpability for the RCC? It’s not like the Church was transferring a dead priest from cemetary to cemetary every time he fondled a corpse. And why should I stop using excuses that the Church uses? The accused party uses something in their defense, and that’s automatically off the table? Why? Because you’re presuming guilty? > [@Cisco](#): > > I’m sure you’re right, Steophan. I just had a visceral reaction to the 1.5 figure. It’s horrifically high, and I suspect it’s a fraction of the true number, as the majority of cases probably go unreported. Also, a family member might molest a small handful of children at most, while a priest can victimize literally dozens upon dozens over the course of his career. Careful with your math, though. Let’s assume that, first of all, the 1.5% that were accused are actually guilty. Let’s further assume that all priests have access to more or less the same amount of kids. In order for 1.5% of “eligible” kids to be molested, the 1.5% of priests would have to diddle their entire parish. But if they only touch 1 out of 100 kids (which I think is probably too high), then it’s only .015% of kids. That’s much less than the 2%-4% of kids overall, and a hell of a lot less than the 9% figure found in our schools. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/92 "2010-08-31T19:56:59Z")
Oh. Well, that’s all right then. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/93 "2010-08-31T20:15:36Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Careful with your math, though. Let’s assume that, first of all, the 1.5% that were accused are actually guilty. Let’s further assume that all priests have access to more or less the same amount of kids. > > In order for 1.5% of “eligible” kids to be molested, the 1.5% of priests would have to diddle their entire parish. Careful with the assumptions that undergird your math! You’re implicitly assuming that each parish has just one priest, and each priest stays at just one parish. I don’t think the former is normally the case, and for the molesting priests, we know that part of the problem was that they would be moved to new stomping grounds every several years. Each increases the frequency of victimization. ---
**Author:** ![Cyningablod](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc29f/32.png) [@Cyningablod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyningablod)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/94 "2010-08-31T22:38:56Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > There’s a double-standard that goes on on the SDMB where if a school board does it, it’s all “meh, it’s just another bad thing out there in the world.” But when it’s the RCC, it’s all “Goddamnit, Catholic Church, when will you ever learn to stop being so evil?” You’ve even got people like **Cyningablod** that just come out and say it. > > “I don’t care if it’s no worse than anywhere else! The facts be damned! I hate the Church!” > > We know, dude. You’re a bigot. We know. This is going nowhere. You really and truly don’t see the difference between a **local** , **secular** school board here or there engaging in a **one-time** cover-up, and the **international** , **“godly”** , RCC engaging in a **systemic** , **institutional** , **decades-long** cover-up? If you can’t grasp the significance of these differences, well, it’s no wonder you hold such foolish views on the matter.\* \*To try to help you out, I’ve color-coded and **bolded** the differences. This usually helps make the idea more easy to visualize. For my six-year-old. :rolleyes: One other thing: You apparently have only a very vague approximation of what the word “bigot” means. [Here’s the _AHD_ definition of the abstract noun in question.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry) After you finish figuring out the conceptual distinctions in the practice passage above, try to identify where my hatred of the RCC differs from the definition of “bigotry”. And remember to completely fill in the circle that corresponds to your selected answer, and erase any stray marks on your answer sheet. You can do it. I believe in you. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/95 "2010-09-01T14:57:38Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Look at the stats [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Diocesan_responses). Credible allegations: 1671. Number of priests: 109,000. So roughly 1.5% of priests will be credibly skeevy. Of those, half were dead, defrocked, excommunicated, suspended, resigned, or retired when (or after) the allegations were made. Oh dear me, you didn’t read very well, did you? Let me help. Your link is to a table of _diocesan responses_, first of all. The tipoff that there was something funny about your numbers was that there were four columns, and in addition to the 1671 ‘credible’ allegations listed, there were another 1872 ‘substantiated’ allegations. ‘Substantiated’ is more solid than ‘credible’, right? But you ignored those numbers altogether. Wasn’t sure how to make sense of the table at the link, either, so since the table came from the John Jay Report, I went back to the original Wikipedia article on the JJR. [It says this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report#The_allegations): [QUOTE=Wikipedia] Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6,700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1,000 that could not be substantiated. [/QUOTE] > [@Chessic Sense](#): > > And it’s not particularly fair that “298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.” In other words, villains were cherry-picked. OK, we’ll include 'em. That gives us 8000 allegations about priests then living, with 6700 substantiated, 1000 that could not be substantiated, and we’ll round to 300 exonerated. If the 3300 not investigated because the priests were dead have the same ratios, that would have yielded about another 2800 substantiated allegations, 400 unsubstantiated allegations, and 100 exonerated priests. So that’s just shy of 10,000 allegations that were either substantiated, or likely would have been. The 6700 substantiated allegations implicated ~4400 distinct then-living priests. The 2800 allegations against deceased priests that would have likely been substantiated if they’d been alive would have implicated another ~1800 priests. So we’re talking about over 6000 molesting priests, not 1671. Gotta run, but that’s just for starters. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/96 "2010-09-01T15:04:05Z")
As I said recently - when the RCC stops being Evil we’ll stop pitting it. Meanwhile. [RCC using time limits to suppress abuse cases](http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/aug/27/child-abuse-catholic-church) > [@](#): > > The Roman Catholic church was accused today of using the legal system to suppress evidence of clerical sex abuse after a Jesuit-run school lost an appeal against a court ruling giving a former pupil the right to pursue a £5m civil action. > > The decision by the court of appeal was described by lawyers representing child abuse victims as “a blow at the church’s culture of secrecy and denial” that would embolden other victims to come forward. > > Governors at Preston Catholic college had argued that the claim by Patrick Raggett, 52, came outside the legal time limit. > > Richard Scorer, an officer of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers, said: “The church refused to believe Mr Raggett’s account of the abuse and tried to have his claim struck out on technical grounds to do with time limits. The church claims to be facing up to child abuse amongst priests. If that is the case, it needs to stop trying to use the legal system to suppress evidence of abuse – it needs to listen to victims, learn from them, compensate them fairly and cleanse itself so that this shocking abuse does not occur in future.” ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/97 "2010-09-01T15:05:16Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > ‘Substantiated’ is more solid than ‘credible’, right? But you ignored those numbers altogether. No. Precisely the opposite. “Credible” is more solid than “substantiated”. That’s why the number is smaller. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/98 "2010-09-01T15:15:39Z")
> [@Cyningablod](#): > > This is going nowhere. You really and truly don’t see the difference between a **local** , **secular** school board here or there engaging in a **one-time** cover-up, and the **international** , **“godly”** , RCC engaging in a **systemic** , **institutional** , **decades-long** cover-up? If you can’t grasp the significance of these differences, well, it’s no wonder you hold such foolish views on the matter.\* > > \*To try to help you out, I’ve color-coded and **bolded** the differences. This usually helps make the idea more easy to visualize. For my six-year-old. :rolleyes: > > One other thing: You apparently have only a very vague approximation of what the word “bigot” means. [Here’s the _AHD_ definition of the abstract noun in question.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry) After you finish figuring out the conceptual distinctions in the practice passage above, try to identify where my hatred of the RCC differs from the definition of “bigotry”. > > And remember to completely fill in the circle that corresponds to your selected answer, and erase any stray marks on your answer sheet. You can do it. I believe in you. First, with the bigot thing: Thanks for the definition. It’s exactly what I thought it meant, and it’s exactly what you are. You’re intolerant of a creed. You’re a bigot. Second, with your color-coding: No, it’s not any different, you asshat. Parishes are local, too, so WTF is the difference if there’s a scandal at a school or a scandal at a parish? Same thing. Second, “secular”. I have no idea why that would matter. Evil is evil, whether it’s secular or religious. Third, the rest of your assertions are completely false. Where the fuck are you getting this “one-time” coverup bullshit? School administrators do it all the time, repeatedly, for decades, over hundreds of different schools. And there’s nothing “systemic” or “institutional” about the RCC coverups. We’ve already shown that it’s no more a problem in the RCC than it is school, and it’s absolutely dwarfed by the number of relative-on-child molestations that occur. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/99 "2010-09-01T15:29:16Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > No. Precisely the opposite. “Credible” is more solid than “substantiated”. That’s why the number is smaller. Errr… no. Credible means “that which can be believed”. As in, the allegation is not laughable on its face. Substantiated, as in “that which has been given substance”, means the victim’s allegation was proven or corroborated by evidence or other testimonies. Sorry to burst your bubble, dawg. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934/100 "2010-09-01T15:30:37Z")
Parishes are local branches of one big centralised organisation in a way school boards are not, dickbrain. But you know that which leaves me wondering why you invest so much time flailing about defending an indefensible organisation covering up and enabling child abuse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/goddammit-catholic-church-you-just-wont-learn/551934.md?page=6)