Good question and it leads to…
Where does all this leave me? I can defend the pope (sometimes), and still feel just fine attacking McCarthy (all the time).
So the exact same set of events must exist for a rule of thumb to work, eh? Are you sure you want to proceed with this line of argument?
Moot, says the cow. Besides, on review, I kicked your ass on those threads. Does it still hurt, or what?
As a matter of fact, I have. I’ve tried to further expand on my point and make it clearer. Of course, one of the favorite debating tactics online is to not quite get the other guy’s point if you don’t have a crusher to respond to it with. It’s often hard to know what’s real not-getting-it and what’s feigned.
The links I referenced did exactly that. And I’m not interested in embarrassing people for their assertions in past debates.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Do you have cites for [ul][li]where Ratzinger said this, []what percent of priests had been ascertained to be guilty at that point, and []percentages for the general populace?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
The 1% figure is quoted in numerous news articles from late 2002.
The interview in which his comments appeared.
A commentary on his remarks
This article claims that 4% to 5% of priests may have been involved in abuse.
At ReligiousTolerance.org, they have a page addressing, among other things, Some estimates on the percent of abusers (about 1/3 of the way down the page) that presents estimates from 2% to 6% (ignoring Ann Coulter’s unsupported and silly claim of only 0**.**12%). There are organizations claiming much higher rates, but none of them have any better facts and most have axes to grind.
Facts regarding other denominations are difficult to determine, mostly because they do not have the centralized records kept by Catholic diocese. Of abuse in other denominations,
Just to quibble, Nixon went after Hiss, McCarthy had nothing to do with it.
On the one hand, Ratzinger was young, and was coerced. On the other, many who joined the Communist party in the early '30s did it out of idealism, out of the sense that something had to be done about the ravages of the Depression, and did not know yet about the show trials and other aspects of Stalinism.
Not to mention that even those stupid enough to remain Communists after the information came out were not violating any laws. Hiss was convicted of espionage, (actually perjury IIRC) not Communism. McCarthy never seemed to mention what those on his list had done wrong, except wrongthink.
Did anyone ever see McCarthy’s list, or any of his evidence? From what I’ve read over the years, nobody saw it.
I think you’re right. If it were available, it would be a thing of pride to be on - like Nixon’s enemies list. I do seem to remember the number of people on it changed also.
Well, something fairly analogous would help. The relevent distinctions would be voluntary vs. involuntary, and child vs. adult.
Cow manure, says the bull. You want to make it personal, take it to the Pit.
I still don’t see why he deserves to be criticized.
He expressed an opinion that doesn’t seem to be at odds with any established facts.
Are you saying there has never been a witch hunt of accusations of sexual misconduct against children that has hurt innocent people?
Regards,
Shodan
Ratzinger’s early statements were rather tone-deaf “circle the wagons” attacks on the media that promoted the perception that the Vatican did not care about the issue. He spoke before he had enough information to make a fair assessment and we still have people trying to use his words to make claims that the Vatican is still trying to avoid responsibility because the person who “defended” the pedophiles is now pope. In a world that runs as much on perception as this one, I find that people who harm their own cause with unconsidered statements worthy of criticism.
I do not join the people who criticize his actions because those actions have consistently been directed toward addressing the problem and healing the victims. However, this issue of his culpability in the matter of priests as abusers was raised on two occasions in this thread. When throwing in my two cents, I noted where I thought criticism was legitimate (early, poorly constructed public defenses) and where I thought criticism was unwarranted (actions). Since nearly all the criticism that remains, today, (see the post by Der Trihs)–and there is a lot of it–is based on people repeating (unclearly) what he said in 1999 or 2001, I think it is fair to criticize his tone-deaf statements for being less than sensitive to the overall issue, thus making it more difficult to discuss or address the issue today.