PDA

View Full Version : Fire fe de Vatican



crackerjack
02-04-2010, 08:40 PM
This is pretty shameful.


The Pope’s preacher today likened recent attacks on the pontiff over the Catholic sex abuse scandal to the “most shameful acts of anti-Semitism”......
Father Cantalamessa, noting that this year the Jewish festival of Passover and Easter fell during the same week, said that Jews throughout history had been the victims of “collective violence” and drew a comparison with current attacks on the Church over the scandal.

Speaking during a ceremony at St Peter’s Basilica commemorating Christ’s Passion, he read to the congregation, which included the Pope, part of a letter that he had received from an unidentified Jewish friend, who said that he was following “with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the church, the Pope and all the faithful of the whole world”.

“The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism,” Father Cantalamessa said his friend wrote to him.


Monsignor Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, said that the Pope was “suffering some of the same unjust accusations, shouts of the mob and scourging at the pillar as did Jesus”.

He said: “Truth and falsehood are scandalously mingled in the New York Times reconstructions. You begin to wonder, is there an agenda of bias here?”

Right, Mel knows what's going on...
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece)

edit: forgot the link. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece)good to see the Times have got Roger back on the case. They should get him to stand outside the Vatican until the Pope quits

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIQ3UpORjHE

mistersloane
02-04-2010, 09:09 PM
the whole self-denying, torrid horrible matter really just deserves this

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/mistersloane/01020142224000.jpg

i personally hope he gets shot.

crackerjack
03-04-2010, 12:13 AM
“The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism,” Father Cantalamessa said his friend wrote to him.

Are there any less shameful aspects he'd like to fill us in on?

mistersloane
03-04-2010, 01:18 AM
^^ Lol innit

I was blessed a while back to meet a guy who had been brought up in the Congregation of Christian Brothers in Ireland. He was maybe 40? 45? and his lower lip still started trembling and he stroked his hands upsettingly as he told me stories of what had happened there, including the one time one of the Brothers hit one of the boys so hard that he 'never got up again'.

It's people like him who I feel hardest for when they read denials like the Catholic Church are doing at the moment, I can't even begin to understand how conflicted people who went through that sort of abuse must feel with regard a religion they were brought up with treating them now like that. At least the Church owes them some form of grace, the way they are behaving at the moment is despicable.

swears
03-04-2010, 02:51 AM
This is stupid and cuntish beyond words. Criticising an institution for gross misconduct and negligence (to say the least!) is not the same as persecuting a race of people. Arrrgghh, just fuck off you smug, pious dick.

polystyle desu
03-04-2010, 02:03 PM
They made their own fire, now can burn their whole institution down with it.
Churches paying taxes is such a fine idea for this century.

grizzleb
04-04-2010, 02:06 AM
Just shows how dislocated from the ordinary world of morality they are. All this flighty bullshit... Any other organisation that had such close links to the paedophile community and I doubt it would have survived a minute. I wonder what the tabloids / ordinary mongo catholics are saying to all this.

edit: I have a catholic extended family etc etc.

Sectionfive
04-04-2010, 01:49 PM
And it keeps on going (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0404/abuse.html)


grizzleb tbh honest people attending mass has been on the decline for years here anyway. It hasn't really been little catholic Ireland for long time. Any shed left of that is quickly getting eroded at the moment. Most of the media and people you meet are on the right side.

The pubs in Limerick could open on good friday for the first time ever this year, on account of the Munster v Lenster match. This would have been impossible years ago and plently of fire and brimstone would have been spat from the pulpit. But the hierarchy was fairly silent on the whole thing.

The church still has its apologists, plenty of people still go to mass and think the bishops walk on water etc, but I believe their a dying breed. I've been brought up in country thats been aware of the abuse and scandles have hit the front pages regularly and recently we've learned the extent of the cover ups and it has brought the whole sorry affair back into back into sharp focus.

The church has been shown fro what it is, Rowan Williams is right and only echoed the feelings of alot of people. The victims should really be at the center of this. When you see things like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4), it puts alot of the other problems people have at the moment in to perspective.

The only thing that might be left is that alot of people will separate 'spirtuality' from ' religion' should they choose all that.

crackerjack
04-04-2010, 01:59 PM
When you see things like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4), it puts alot of the other problems people have at the moment in to perspective.

Jesus. I just felt my blood freeze.

grizzleb
04-04-2010, 04:21 PM
Yeah, that is really shocking.

mistersloane
04-04-2010, 06:50 PM
God I wasn't expecting that, had me in tears.

scottdisco
04-04-2010, 07:22 PM
God I wasn't expecting that, had me in tears.

yep, thanks for that Sectionfive, what Sloane said. unbelievable.

polystyle desu
09-04-2010, 06:02 PM
Vatican may 'talk to victims' ?
try to 'restore' some faith in the church - sorry *ucks you've had your time. Grrr
Maybe in the 21st century the planet can get out from under.
And thanks for the video Sectionfive .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10church.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

massrock
09-04-2010, 06:27 PM
People might be rightly cynical about possibility for change but corrupt politics, banks and churches have all taken significant hits in recent years and though of course what is revealed is often not pretty I think that's good news. Let's keep the pressure up.

For I & I know that all of the youth shall witness the day...etc.

massrock
09-04-2010, 06:38 PM
When I say 'hits' I guess that means PR hits more than anything, but I think that counts for something. We know what we think anyway but strength can be drawn from a more visible consensus.

mistersloane
09-04-2010, 07:36 PM
People might be rightly cynical about possibility for change but corrupt politics, banks and churches have all taken significant hits in recent years and though of course what is revealed is often not pretty I think that's good news. Let's keep the pressure up.

For I & I know that all of the youth shall witness the day...etc.

I was thinking that the other day, everything's been very 'revelations' over the past few years, truth coming to light and all that.

polystyle desu
09-04-2010, 08:07 PM
I was thinking that the other day, everything's been very 'revelations' over the past few years, truth coming to light and all that.

Agreed, keep the pressure up and watch who pops like a pimple.
Almost all institutions set up thousands -hundreds, half century ago all need to be reevaluated, and some junked completely.
Some headway being made and in aftermath of economic meltdown, some wind at the back now.
Unexpected ( yes ! ) , unforeseen and just plain new things need room to come up.

polystyle desu
09-04-2010, 09:10 PM
We were saying ...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Pope-Church-Abuse.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Sectionfive
09-04-2010, 10:38 PM
yeah the lad in that video is a former mayor, Micheal O Brien.
That clip is from last year, on our version of question time when the ryan report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse) was published. He's calling out the government because they are useless...
Never seen anything like it before, our whole house was numb the night it went out, horrible feeling. He's just one of people living a life like that, let down at every level.
Maybe he might come face to face (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0409/abuse.html) with the pontiff, probably not.


Back to the vatican. tbh I dont think many are going to pop ,
No matter how much pressure or how many smoking guns they find with Ratzinger's signature on. The pope is untouchable, we all know this lot will always have an army of defenders and canon law to hide behind. The holy sea has surived long enough without listen to what anyone else says. That History of Christianity on bbc a while back showed how the every pope just changes the rules every couple of years to suit themselves.

crackerjack
12-04-2010, 09:27 AM
Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: "They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers."
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/11/catholic-bishop-blames-jews)
.

Mr. Tea
12-04-2010, 10:16 AM
A neat rundown of the six most awful popes (http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php).

mms
12-04-2010, 07:52 PM
.

of you really want to shirk responsibility, blame the Jews, History's most reliable scapegoat.

Dr Awesome
13-04-2010, 01:47 AM
Ofcourse it's a publicity stunt more than anything, and maybe (?) a repost too but:

Richard Dawkins plans to arrest the pope for his part in the Child Molesting cover-up. (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415)

crackerjack
13-04-2010, 09:01 AM
Ofcourse it's a publicity stunt more than anything, and maybe (?) a repost too but:

Richard Dawkins plans to arrest the pope for his part in the Child Molesting cover-up. (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415)

They ran this on ITN news last night, though with Hitchens fronting it rather than Dawkins. The newsreader warned the story contained images of the Pope some might find offensive, but it wasn't clear if that was the poster of him with a Hitler tash calling him a paedophile or the unvarnished shots of the old paedo-enabling Muslim-hating Hitler Youthite in action.

Dr Awesome
13-04-2010, 10:25 AM
They ran this on ITN news last night, though with Hitchens fronting it rather than Dawkins. The newsreader warned the story contained images of the Pope some might find offensive, but it wasn't clear if that was the poster of him with a Hitler tash calling him a paedophile or the unvarnished shots of the old paedo-enabling Muslim-hating Hitler Youthite in action.

Yes well the irony of a Polish pope suddenly being replaced by a German one wasn't lost on me at the time of his coronation.

I think holding any one person accountable for this is a bit of a laugh really, the whole system was endemic in it's failure. All that the public seems to want now is a lust for blood.

On a related note my mother works (as a non-Catholic mind) for the Catholic Church in NZ - the number of times I've gone into her work (with Skull Disco/Megadeath shirt on and praising Allah for the weather) to help out and been told that Brother XYZ who's hidden away with the archives that I need to go get is a convicted/known sex offender is a bit worrying. The whole Church must be rotten to it's core...

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 10:57 AM
On a purely practical note, wouldn't there be a lot less of this sort of thing if Catholic priests could, y'know, marry?


Anglican vicar (mockingly): Hur hur, I like your dress mate!

Fr. Ted (spitting mad): Why don't you go and have SEX with your WIFE?!!

Dr Awesome
13-04-2010, 11:16 AM
On a purely practical note, wouldn't there be a lot less of this sort of thing if Catholic priests could, y'know, marry?

Wait... since when has practicality and reason been relevant to organised religion?

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 11:42 AM
Wait... since when has practicality and reason been relevant to organised religion?

Sorry, my bad. :o

Dr Awesome
13-04-2010, 11:50 AM
40 Hail Mary's and 3 Choir Boys should be suitable as punishment.:p

scottdisco
13-04-2010, 12:46 PM
I think holding any one person accountable for this is a bit of a laugh really, the whole system was endemic in it's failure. All that the public seems to want now is a lust for blood.

yeah i can see where you're coming from here; Hitchens and Dawkins are nothing if not media-savvy of course.

interesting to see the Vatican's official paper splashing over the weekend w a big think-piece of the melodic legacy of the Beatles...

crackerjack
13-04-2010, 03:38 PM
if it's not the Jews to blame, it's the gayers (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.ece)

edit: i've only just read the piece. Wow.

“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and paedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and paedophilia. That is true. That is the problem.”

zhao
13-04-2010, 06:31 PM
“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and paedophilia.

this may or may not be accurate but it seems obvious, to me at least, that there is for sure relation between the psychological conditions and the inherent repressions of a life in the church and probably especially priesthood, and paedophilia.

Mr. Tea
13-04-2010, 06:46 PM
Well other sects and denominations have their own attendant scandals and problems, but it's noteworthy that it's specifically the Catholic church that has this perennial child-abuse disaster associated with it. I think most (all?) the major protestant congregations allow their clergy to marry...anyone know anything about the Orthodox churches in this respect?

Sectionfive
13-04-2010, 06:46 PM
Paedophilies become preists not the other way round.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 07:23 PM
Paedophilies become preists not the other way round.

That's what power and authority do... call out to be abused by sociopathic assholes.

IdleRich
13-04-2010, 07:56 PM
"if it's not the Jews to blame, it's the gayers"
Why didn't Roger Boyes write that article?


"I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and paedophilia. That is true."
Well if he's been told it by somebody it must be true I guess.


"Cardinal Bertone also said that the church had never impeded investigations of paedophilia by priests."
Well that's alright then.

zhao
13-04-2010, 09:54 PM
Paedophilies become preists not the other way round.

you really think so? i'm not so sure but leaning toward the opposite. that paedophillia is an inherent and necessary part of the catholic system (and not an aberration). the system creates monsters -- which also explains why the problem is, if not entirely unique, so concentrated in Catholicism and not protestantism or other sects as someone else mentioned.

zhao
13-04-2010, 09:57 PM
this might be a dumb or potentially offensive question: has anyone ever tried to demonstrate that some people are more genetically predisposed for paedophillia?

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 10:12 PM
this might be a dumb or potentially offensive question: has anyone ever tried to demonstrate that some people are more genetically predisposed for paedophillia?

Not dumb at all... a lot of sex offenders have abnormally high levels of free floating testosterone. That's why, in the U.S., a lot of them submit to hormonal castration as part of a prison program. Basically, they pump them full of progesterone to counteract the effects of the testosterone. Apparently, recidivism rates are still quite high with these guys.

A lot of psychologists claim that sexuality is more or less "set" by age 6-10, so this kind of treatment is bound to fail. A lot of pedophiles are guys with a lot of testosterone who were molested as children themselves or otherwise victimized. There are female child-rapists as well, but (iirc) I think the research indicates that they tend to be attracted to young adolescents more than pre-pubescent children (which the male ones like better). Female sex offenders rarely get caught, too, so some people say the number is much higher than people realize.

Sectionfive
13-04-2010, 10:18 PM
Zhao, Well I really dont think its inherent and necessary to be a paedophilie if you want to be a catholic preist.

But it is inherent and necessary for paedophile's to have access to children, a feeling of power, the trust of parents and if being above the law and having a whole system in place to cover your tracks comes as part of the deal... The preisthood is a cushty number for them.

And think of it this way, its only concentrated in Catholicism because we know about it.
Who knows what happens else where? We only have more reported rapes now, but that doesnt mean there more concentrated in this decade then the 30s.

padraig (u.s.)
13-04-2010, 10:18 PM
this might be a dumb or potentially offensive question: has anyone ever tried to demonstrate that some people are more genetically predisposed for paedophillia?

that's not a dumb question at all, but I don't think it's possible, at least with the current level of knowledge & technology. it's like the search for a "gay gene"; people have this idea that there's a genetic switch and you just flick it and bam! no more gay son. but that's not how genetics works, not at all. the issue is that sexual orientation/preference isn't a trait in the same way that eye color is. clearly genetic predisposition is a huge influence, but (especially w/r/t pedophilia) there are so many environmental factors and I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate out what influence comes from what, in terms of doing studies that would give you usable data.

incidentally, I encourage you to exhibit a healthy skepticism any time you see anyone making hard & fast genetic claims about a topic as fuzzy as sexuality.

edit: nomad beat me to the punch with a different answer, but I think both of our answers are right. it's true that many child molesters have high testosterone levels, which you can look at as a genetic disposition towards high production of that hormone. I don't know if any studies have been done to show a causation (rather than merely a correlation) between high testosterone and child molestation. even you did do such a study, again, you'd have to some way of separating out the influence of high testosterone levels from other factors.

chemical castration, AFAIK, just kills the sex drive altogether, it doesn't actually take away any of the underlying desires. likely explaining the high recidivism rate.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 10:53 PM
that's not a dumb question at all, but I don't think it's possible, at least with the current level of knowledge & technology. it's like the search for a "gay gene"; people have this idea that there's a genetic switch and you just flick it and bam! no more gay son. but that's not how genetics works, not at all. the issue is that sexual orientation/preference isn't a trait in the same way that eye color is. clearly genetic predisposition is a huge influence, but (especially w/r/t pedophilia) there are so many environmental factors and I think it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to separate out what influence comes from what, in terms of doing studies that would give you usable data.

incidentally, I encourage you to exhibit a healthy skepticism any time you see anyone making hard & fast genetic claims about a topic as fuzzy as sexuality.

edit: nomad beat me to the punch with a different answer, but I think both of our answers are right. it's true that many child molesters have high testosterone levels, which you can look at as a genetic disposition towards high production of that hormone. I don't know if any studies have been done to show a causation (rather than merely a correlation) between high testosterone and child molestation. even you did do such a study, again, you'd have to some way of separating out the influence of high testosterone levels from other factors.

chemical castration, AFAIK, just kills the sex drive altogether, it doesn't actually take away any of the underlying desires. likely explaining the high recidivism rate.

I think they're abandoning the progesterone therapy, more or less, because the guys themselves say it's also a psychological issue not entirely a baseline drive issue.

Yeah, with the high testosterone, it could be a cart/hourse question... certain high risk behaviors can elevate testosterone, so maybe some pedophiles are thrill seakers who are addicted to the adrenaile/testosterone boost it gives them.

nomadthethird
13-04-2010, 10:55 PM
Zhao, Well I really dont think its inherent and necessary to be a paedophilie if you want to be a catholic preist.

But it is inherent and necessary for paedophile's to have access to children, a feeling of power, the trust of parents and if being above the law and having a whole system in place to cover your tracks comes as part of the deal... The preisthood is a cushty number for them.

And think of it this way, its only concentrated in Catholicism because we know about it.
Who knows what happens else where? We only have more reported rapes now, but that doesnt mean there more concentrated in this decade then the 30s.

Yeah, but Section, there are few denominations that allow priests/leaders such an inordinate amount of unsupervised access to children as Catholicism does... I think that with paired with the fact that the RCC's strategy for dealing with problems is to "keep it in the family" and avoid allowing secular/legal authorities to prosecute or get involved is enough to make Catholicism a haven for pedophiles.

padraig (u.s.)
13-04-2010, 11:17 PM
Yeah, with the high testosterone, it could be a cart/hourse question... certain high risk behaviors can elevate testosterone, so maybe some pedophiles are thrill seakers who are addicted to the adrenaile/testosterone boost it gives them.

I just mean it's much, much tougher to show causation than it is to show a correlation. you can do studies comparing testosterone levels in pedophiles to those of randomly sampled non-pedophile males, but that only indicates correlation. to show causation, you have to have some means of isolating the variable you're looking at, and I don't know if there's any way to do that in this case. not that we're in disagreement, but just to clarify.

Dr Awesome
14-04-2010, 01:17 AM
I doubt people with high testosterone are attracted into gods service, none of the priests I've met (including young ones) are very "sporty", or act like alpha males.
In my mind, the danger of them becoming sex offenders is that:

1) As a pre-cursor they may have been sexually abused themselves
2) They are put into an environment where offending is easy, and the chances of getting caught slim
3) They have no "normal" sexual relationships
4) They may be aware that other priests are doing it (ie - normalising it)

After years of not having any sexual release they must have some very strong desires - I can't even begin to think what would happen to men everywhere if they were told they couldn't have sex and that wanking was sinful...
As the Stanford prison experiment showed - people can be made to behave very badly indeed in the right (wrong) situations.

grizzleb
14-04-2010, 01:21 AM
I think it's been proven that actually, paedophiles have more in common genetically with crabs than with other people.

grizzleb
14-04-2010, 01:27 AM
I think the point about not having any normal sexual interaction is an important one. Also - the way that normal sexual interaction is probably viewed morally within the church distorts it, so that any sexual interaction is viewed as this horrible evil that has to be purged or something. And I'm sure many of the priests are choking for a wee tug and a swatch of youporn all the time. And so then even the most basic, harmless sex gets turned into this horrible 'evil' that you can't avoid, meaning that you can't make a distinction between having a wank and molesting a child. The point about the structure of the organisation playing a part is important too. Th fact that priests are trusted, and up until recently would have certainly have been believed over children in most cases means that the likelihood of reprecussions are slim, and all you have is your own inner moral turmoil or whatever. Fuck knows, but I don't think paedophiles consciously enter the church to abuse children, I think that's mental. Priests become paedos is my line.

droid
14-04-2010, 08:59 AM
There is some awful bollocks being talked in this thread. The fact is that the incidence of child sexual abuse amongst RC priests and brothers is statistically average and even less than other professions practised in many countries and cultures around the world.

50% of all children taken into care in secular Sweden have been abused. Academic studies have shown that the incidence of abuse amongst clerics is about 1% across all denominations.According to Phillip Jenkins, the numbers are 0.2-1.7% for priests, 2.0-3.0 for protestant clergy. A Catholic league study found that it was statistically safer to leave your child with a priest rather than a schoolteacher. IIRC this also applies to dentists.

So, this isnt about celibacy or homosexuality, nor are Catholic priests more likely to abuse than other clergy or professions. This is about institutional cover ups and abusers being protected by the Chruch and the state - thats where the real evil is.

padraig (u.s.)
14-04-2010, 03:35 PM
So, this isnt about celibacy or homosexuality, nor are Catholic priests more likely to abuse than other clergy or professions. This is about institutional cover ups and abusers being protected by the Chruch and the state - thats where the real evil is.

Droid is right. the only study I know of on the topic - the John Jay College one - suggests that priests don't have an abnormally high rate of molestation compared to other clergy, teachers, etc. unfortunately, this isn't b/c the RC priest rate is low, but b/c the rate of molestation in the general population is fairly high. the two strongest predictors of abuse are access to children & a preexisting relationship w/the victims. (tho again we're talking correlation, not causation)

However, the church has absolutely no one to blame but itself for the extremely negative public perceptions. Also, attempting to foist off its molestation/cover-up issues by saying "but everyone has this problem" - a line I've seen apologists take - is unconscionable. Other organizations don't go out of their way, generally, to foil criminal investigations and run interference for repeat offenders.

Tentative Andy
14-04-2010, 03:45 PM
Yeah, and maybe this is an obvious point - but given the extent of the institutional cover-up, how accurate are the current figures likely to be? Surely there could be huge numbers of abuse victims who were prevented from coming forward or who had their allegations uncritically dismissed. Do those carrying out the studies have access to those people? (Honest question). My basic feeling is that it's too early to declare the true extent of abuse within the church.
(I take Droid's general point, though - to an extent).

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 04:20 PM
There is some awful bollocks being talked in this thread. The fact is that the incidence of child sexual abuse amongst RC priests and brothers is statistically average and even less than other professions practised in many countries and cultures around the world.

50% of all children taken into care in secular Sweden have been abused. Academic studies have shown that the incidence of abuse amongst clerics is about 1% across all denominations.According to Phillip Jenkins, the numbers are 0.2-1.7% for priests, 2.0-3.0 for protestant clergy. A Catholic league study found that it was statistically safer to leave your child with a priest rather than a schoolteacher. IIRC this also applies to dentists.

So, this isnt about celibacy or homosexuality, nor are Catholic priests more likely to abuse than other clergy or professions. This is about institutional cover ups and abusers being protected by the Chruch and the state - thats where the real evil is.

First of all, where did you get your statistics? Because those aren't the ones I've seen. I've seen lots of conflicting data on this from different sources.

But let's pretend you're right-- Does any of this excuse the past several hundred years of cover up? Or the fact that after priests got caught by the church authorities, they simply were shuffled off to the next parish? NOPE. Does it excuse statements made by bishops comparing the public's outrage at the RCC coverups with the holocaust? NOPE.

If a school teacher molested someone, they'd be sent to prison. If a Catholic priest does it, he gets sent to another town that doesn't know he's a pedophile, because he's not a registered sex offender, because the church did not hand him over to the legal authorities.

This is just another instance of the Church putting itself above the law, and in manner that puts the public at risk.

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 04:22 PM
Yeah, and maybe this is an obvious point - but given the extent of the institutional cover-up, how accurate are the current figures likely to be? Surely there could be huge numbers of abuse victims who were prevented from coming forward or who had their allegations uncritically dismissed. Do those carrying out the studies have access to those people? (Honest question). My basic feeling is that it's too early to declare the true extent of abuse within the church.
(I take Droid's general point, though - to an extent).

Those figures are not correct. Philip Jenkins? What is he world's resident statistician now? Nope, he's, what else, a Religious Studies professor! And a long-time contributor to Christianity Today. No formal training in mathematics whatsoever. Yeah, what a reliable source of statistical information.

Give me a break...

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 04:28 PM
Also, I'd guess that a statistic that claims 50% of Swedish children are abused in day car or school covers all abuse, not just sexual abuse. I can't find that anywhere, not a single reputable site made by a government or independent agency.

"All abuse" encompasses verbal and psychological abuse. And those sorts of metrics can be distorted very easily by someone with an agenda. It's much more difficult to distort statistics when there are formal, legal documents backing up the claims. Which there are more often than not in cases of "secular" abuse.

And yeah, I wouldn't doubt that there are all kinds of pervs at other churchs, too. That doesn't make it ok.

Mr. Tea
14-04-2010, 04:37 PM
Does any of this excuse the past several hundred years of cover up? Or the fact that after priests got caught by the church authorities, they simply were shuffled off to the next parish? NOPE. Does it excuse statements made by bishops comparing the public's outrage at the RCC coverups with the holocaust? NOPE.


Come on, droid is scarcely trying to 'excuse' anyone, is he? And he mentioned the Church's cover-up operations explicitly.

padraig (u.s.)
14-04-2010, 04:59 PM
Yeah, and maybe this is an obvious point - but given the extent of the institutional cover-up, how accurate are the current figures likely to be? Surely there could be huge numbers of abuse victims who were prevented from coming forward or who had their allegations uncritically dismissed. Do those carrying out the studies have access to those people? (Honest question).

that's broadly true with all situations of abuse. most cases aren't reported under any circumstances.


If a school teacher molested someone, they'd be sent to prison. If a Catholic priest does it, he gets sent to another town that doesn't know he's a pedophile, because he's not a registered sex offender, because the church did not hand him over to the legal authorities.

I think a fair # school teachers who molest kids don't go to prison because they're never caught. the main difference is between the institutional reactions to molestation. which is what droid was talking about. also tbc the only study I've seen that I'll stand behind is, again, the John Jay College one. I don't know anything the Swedish thing. also, I'd take anything the Catholic League says with an enormous grain of salt. however, there is no data (again, that I've seen) that does suggest priests molest at a statistically significant higher rate.

also, with Tea - come on people. no one's excusing anything.

Tentative Andy
14-04-2010, 05:12 PM
that's broadly true with all situations of abuse. most cases aren't reported under any circumstances.


Yeah, fair enough, I'm aware of that. I just feel that the known history of manipulation of the facts means that in this case it's particularly difficult to believe fully in the accuracy of current statistics, and at least reasonable to suspect (though not with certainty, of course) that the true figures may be higher.
Anyway, don't want to elevate this into a bigger point than I intended. I'm not having a go at Droid and don't think he's excusing anything.

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 05:26 PM
also, with Tea - come on people. no one's excusing anything.

Nobody on this thread maybe... but the RCC's lamentable lack of ability to apologize and reform is the issue here. Not the words of the people on the thread.

And no one needs to tell me that school teacher's abuse kids, too, I was tortured by one myself, and lived to see them teach for another 20 years unpunished.

I've seen data that says the rate of molestation in the RCC is something like 3 times that of other denominations... but I will have to dig it up... can't remember the source off the top of my head...

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 05:32 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't really have time for people who are going to play "let's compare statistics" when that's not the issue- everyone knows there are pedophiles in every profession. So why even bring that up?

It's the tactic being used by all of the foremost apologists for the RCC at the moment. Well, that, and blaming things on Zionists and/or Nazis in our midst. Same diff, I guess.

Edit: And celibacy has nothing to do with pedophilia, of course not. Everyone knows the real reason for celibacy in the RCC is this:


The celibacy forced onto Catholic priests is actually not nonsense at all and has a very specific purpose--it allows the Church to inherit their property when they die without a lot of wives and kids making claims to Daddy's habits and rosary beads.

What's more brilliant than a protection racket? One where the capos don't have to feed the families of their casualties.

droid
14-04-2010, 08:49 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't really have time for people who are going to play "let's compare statistics" when that's not the issue- everyone knows there are pedophiles in every profession. So why even bring that up?

It's the tactic being used by all of the foremost apologists for the RCC at the moment. Well, that, and blaming things on Zionists and/or Nazis in our midst. Same diff, I guess.
.

Seriously Nomad, please fuck off. Im not making excuses for anyone. This thread was discussing why there was such a high incidence of child abuse amongst Catholic priests, I was simply addressing the core of that question - so it is an issue.

It is true that in certain parts of the US the % rate is much higher btw. But all those figures are from memory so please feel free to do some research yourself. BTW the Ryan report covered all types of abuse - not just sexual. Id also like to point out that (as has been hinted at above), about 90% of sexual abuse is committed by members of the family or close acquantancies - not professionals.

None of this excuses anything the church and state did to cover up the crimes, thats implicit in my last post. If I had my way the Irish Catholic church would be stripped of its assets and all of those complicit in the abuse would be rooted out and prosecuted, that includes priests, bishops, judges, doctors and politicians.

We need a de-nazification programme for the RC church and its abetters in child absue.

vimothy
14-04-2010, 08:56 PM
No need to attack Philip Jenkins either. He's a serious scholar, and, if memory serves, professor of criminology as well as religious studies.

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 10:14 PM
Seriously Nomad, please fuck off. Im not making excuses for anyone. This thread was discussing why there was such a high incidence of child abuse amongst Catholic priests, I was simply addressing the core of that question - so it is an issue.

It is true that in certain parts of the US the % rate is much higher btw. But all those figures are from memory so please feel free to do some research yourself. BTW the Ryan report covered all types of abuse - not just sexual. Id also like to point out that (as has been hinted at above), about 90% of sexual abuse is committed by members of the family or close acquantancies - not professionals.

None of this excuses anything the church and state did to cover up the crimes, thats implicit in my last post. If I had my way the Irish Catholic church would be stripped of its assets and all of those complicit in the abuse would be rooted out and prosecuted, that includes priests, bishops, judges, doctors and politicians.

We need a de-nazification programme for the RC church and its abetters in child absue.

Seriously, Droid, suck my dick.

"90% of sexual abuse is committed by members of the family or close acquantancies - not professionals."

This statistic makes no sense. "Family members" are often "professionals". There's a lot of overlap there. Unless you mean that people are more often abused by family members, which is probably true-- they have better access.

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 10:16 PM
No need to attack Philip Jenkins either. He's a serious scholar, and, if memory serves, professor of criminology as well as religious studies.

I didn't say he wasn't a serious scholar. He's just not a serious mathematician, nor is he, for that matter, a functionary of any agency that has authoritative statistics on child abuse...at least, not as far as I know of...

I can think of about a thousand people off the top of my head who'd I trust before him on that issue, anyway.

vimothy
14-04-2010, 10:32 PM
What, you have to be a mathematician before you can cite research now? Kinda pricing yourself out of the market as well here, don't you think?

Anyway, he is a religious studies and criminology academic, so the idea that has some grasp on the state of knowledge here doesn't seem that far fetched.

droid
14-04-2010, 10:44 PM
Seriously, Droid, suck my dick.

"90% of sexual abuse is committed by members of the family or close acquantancies - not professionals."

This statistic makes no sense. "Family members" are often "professionals". There's a lot of overlap there. Unless you mean that people are more often abused by family members, which is probably true-- they have better access.

Why? Did I accuse you of beng a 'foremost apologist(s) for the RCC'??

As is patently obvious by the context of my post, by reference to 'family members 'I meant that abuse was committed by fathers, brothers, uncles, and ocassionally mothers aunts and sisters. If someone is abused by the father who also happens to be a doctor, then the abuse did not happen in the abusers 'professional' capacity. If an abuser uses his profession as a means to find and abuse their victims then it does

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 11:08 PM
Why? Did I accuse you of beng a 'foremost apologist(s) for the RCC'.

As is patently obvious by the context of my post, by reference to 'family members 'I meant that abuse was committed by fathers, brothers, uncles, and ocassionally mothers aunts and sisters. If someone is abused by the father who also happens to be a doctor, then the abuse did not happen in the abusers 'professional' capacity. If an abuser uses his profession as a means to find and abuse their victims then it does

No it's not patently obvious. In statistics there's a "hard" and a "soft" "or". Depending on whether the data was counted using a hard or soft or, the accuracy can be skewed considerably. You seem to assume there was a "hard" or used in the calculations, so that family incidence was counted discretely and separately from professional incidence. I have no reason to believe that, until I see the actual data.

Also, the idea that someone who is molesting their family member is not also molesting others is hard to believe. I'd guess that they start with their family members, easy handy victims, and work their way up as they get more nerve and the thrill dies a little. I'd imagine family violence is often corroborated by a female or other caregiver, so it's easier to nail the abusers, and so statistically the incidence is going to look higher, depending on whether they correct for unreported incidence. Often, abuse by professionals can't be corroborated and so it isn't tried in court. (But there are still police reports or institutional documentation of complaints...)

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 11:13 PM
What, you have to be a mathematician before you can cite research now? Kinda pricing yourself out of the market as well here, don't you think?

Anyway, he is a religious studies and criminology academic, so the idea that has some grasp on the state of knowledge here doesn't seem that far fetched.

Fine, if we're going to talk citations-- where did Jenkins get his data?

You don't get to just present hearsay as data when it comes to data analysis. "I heard this one guy cite some figures, but not where he got them" won't work...

droid
14-04-2010, 11:17 PM
Why dont you just quote some of the 'thousand people' you trust before him?

nomadthethird
14-04-2010, 11:20 PM
Why dont you just quote some of the 'thousand people' you trust before him?

Any of the ones on here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statisticians) who are still living would work... even then, it would depend on whose payroll they were on...

There are several government agencies that would have good statistics on this. The Department of Social Services jumps immediately to mind.

mistersloane
14-04-2010, 11:35 PM
Go France! Go France! Go France!

"Earlier, France - where an estimated 60% of the population are Catholic - became the first country to criticise the cardinal.
"This is an unacceptable linkage and we condemn this," foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero told reporters in Paris. "France is firmly engaged in the struggle against discrimination and prejudice linked to sexual orientation and gender identity."

vimothy
14-04-2010, 11:42 PM
So you do need to be a statistician before you can cite statistical research then? This is such a rip-snortingly fallacious argument that I've become clean unable to take anything you say seriously until I see your doctorate in statistics.

droid
15-04-2010, 08:41 AM
So you do need to be a statistician before you can cite statistical research then? This is such a rip-snortingly fallacious argument that I've become clean unable to take anything you say seriously until I see your doctorate in statistics.

lol. I also like the way 'a 1000 people I could trust off the top of my head' quickly became a wiki list - and still no counter evidence!

Regardless. I'm open to seeing more detailed stats if anyone has them. Those came from memory after a similar argument I had a few years back. Saw something recently from a uk child protection agency that claimed 86% of abuse was committed by family or friends though.

Mobile internet usage does not encourage lengthy posts or thorough sourcing I admit...

droid
15-04-2010, 10:11 AM
Good article from an anti-church commentator which mentions Padraig's John Jay report and the Swedish abuse scandal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests

Mr. Tea
15-04-2010, 11:05 AM
Good article from an anti-church commentator which mentions Padraig's John Jay report and the Swedish abuse scandal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests

Some really retarded comments, though (plus ca change...) - many of them falling foul of the same fallacy that nomad did when she attacked you earlier. It goes like this:

Person A: [issue X] is bad!
Person B: but independently of this, [issue Y] (which may be less widely discussed than [issue X]) is also bad.
Person A: OMG! You're excusing [issue X]! How COULD you?!

It happens on here aaall the time. One person will say "Al-Qa'eda are bad" and someone will respond "So Guantanamo Bay is fine, is it?"; if someone says "Guantanamo Bay is bad" you'll get "So al-Qa'eda are fine, are they?".

Dr Awesome
15-04-2010, 12:31 PM
Some really retarded comments, though (plus ca change...) - many of them falling foul of the same fallacy that nomad did when she attacked you earlier. It goes like this:

Person A: [issue X] is bad!
Person B: but independently of this, [issue Y] (which may be less widely discussed than [issue X]) is also bad.
Person A: OMG! You're excusing [issue X]! How COULD you?!

It happens on here aaall the time. One person will say "Al-Qa'eda are bad" and someone will respond "So Guantanamo Bay is fine, is it?"; if someone says "Guantanamo Bay is bad" you'll get "So al-Qa'eda are fine, are they?".

Pretty classic example of a Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument or related fallacy innit?

Mr. Tea
15-04-2010, 12:40 PM
Pretty classic example of a Straw Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) argument or related fallacy innit?

Yep, and it happens a lot here. I'm sure I've been guilty of it myself, too.

In fairness, the guy writing the CIF piece sounded a bit silly when he said, in effect, "The Catholic Church is probably no worse than any other organisation that [nominally] looks after kids" - well most organisations, even charities or whatever, don't really hold themselves up to the same kind of supposed moral standards as the largest sect of the largest religion, do they?

Chuu
15-04-2010, 01:00 PM
I have heard two stories from Albanian people that got here through Greece, they told me a lot of Albanian kids get sucked in by fake priests who offer them salvation from the streets, the children are sent out to beg for the "church" during the day and are horrifically abused by the "priests" they are working for. One of them was actually tricked into going to the place they keep the boys and he said it was like a grotty workhouse just full of young half-naked boys, when he realised what was going on he escaped.

Something needs to be done about that shit. ASAP

polystyle desu
15-04-2010, 04:45 PM
Well, the Vatican has a suggestion for all who believe -
YOU should do 'penance' ...

“Now under the attacks of the world that talks to us of our sins, let us see that the ability to perform penance is a grace and we see how it is necessary to perform penance, that is, to recognize what is wrong in our life,” he added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/world/europe/16vatican.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Aaah, that messy outside world- it may intrude on the Christian fiction once in a while

Mr. Tea
15-04-2010, 04:53 PM
"Now let's just admit that mistakes were made and try and move on, without getting too bogged down in the details of exactly who was abused by whom..."

Edit: great bit on The Onion the other day - "Pope vows to reduce sex abuse by priests to acceptable levels by 2020", or somesuch.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:00 PM
So you do need to be a statistician before you can cite statistical research then? This is such a rip-snortingly fallacious argument that I've become clean unable to take anything you say seriously until I see your doctorate in statistics.

He didn't cite any statistics. He mentioned a guy who "cited statistcs" but didn't give the actual citation.

I'm sorry, but if you think that counts, you're the one with intellectual issues...

scottdisco
15-04-2010, 05:01 PM
Some really retarded comments, though (plus ca change...) - many of them falling foul of the same fallacy that nomad did when she attacked you earlier. It goes like this:

Person A: [issue X] is bad!
Person B: but independently of this, [issue Y] (which may be less widely discussed than [issue X]) is also bad.
Person A: OMG! You're excusing [issue X]! How COULD you?!

It happens on here aaall the time. One person will say "Al-Qa'eda are bad" and someone will respond "So Guantanamo Bay is fine, is it?"; if someone says "Guantanamo Bay is bad" you'll get "So al-Qa'eda are fine, are they?".

this is called whataboutery.

dozy cunts like the Guardian's Seumas Milne do it all the time.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:02 PM
lol. I also like the way 'a 1000 people I could trust off the top of my head' quickly became a wiki list - and still no counter evidence!

Regardless. I'm open to seeing more detailed stats if anyone has them. Those came from memory after a similar argument I had a few years back. Saw something recently from a uk child protection agency that claimed 86% of abuse was committed by family or friends though.

Mobile internet usage does not encourage lengthy posts or thorough sourcing I admit...

Yeah, statistics from memory! Yay! And quoted from conversations with friends!

I'm sorry I don't have time to find you actual statics, but I have a math exam and a biology exam tomorrow. This thread is going to have to wait, alas.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:05 PM
Some really retarded comments, though (plus ca change...) - many of them falling foul of the same fallacy that nomad did when she attacked you earlier. It goes like this:

Person A: [issue X] is bad!
Person B: but independently of this, [issue Y] (which may be less widely discussed than [issue X]) is also bad.
Person A: OMG! You're excusing [issue X]! How COULD you?!

It happens on here aaall the time. One person will say "Al-Qa'eda are bad" and someone will respond "So Guantanamo Bay is fine, is it?"; if someone says "Guantanamo Bay is bad" you'll get "So al-Qa'eda are fine, are they?".

For FUCK'S SAKE. I never said Droid was "excusing" anything. I said the language he was using, and the bogus hearsay "statistics" were the same statistics the Vatican was using to make excuses for itself.

Can you people read?

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:06 PM
Saw something recently from a uk child protection agency that claimed 86% of abuse was committed by family or friends though....

Oh yeah? You did? That should be easy enough to google up...

Citation please.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:11 PM
Real statistics (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm#can)... well whatdoyaknow! They do exist.


And what do they indicate? Well, as of 2008, most of the overall abuse--60%+ from a parent (esp a mother)-- falls under "neglect" or "medical neglect" or "psychological abuse". However, this does not mean that most children who are sexually abused are abused by a parent. In fact, from what I can tell, and I only had a few minutes to look it over, most sexual abuse is perpetrated by non-parent caregivers or custodians (professionals, doctors, soccer coach, whoever).

Here's the quote:

The percentage of perpetrators of sexual abuse was highest among friends or neighbors (58.3%), “other” (41.0%), other professionals (36.1%), other relatives (30.8%), and child daycare providers (21.2%).7

It's very misleading to cite overall abuse statistics as if they reflect perp incidence in sex abuse specifically.

droid
15-04-2010, 05:19 PM
Oh yeah? You did? That should be easy enough to google up...

Citation please.

Off you go then. I can't be arsed, and you're the (self professed) expert, who, incidentally has yet to provide a single stat herself - cited or no.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:28 PM
Off you go then. I can't be arsed, and you're the (self professed) expert, who, incidentally has yet to provide a single stat herself - cited or no.

See above.

Edit: By the way, "Other" up there includes clergy.

nomadthethird
15-04-2010, 05:41 PM
It would be really nice, if, in this whole Vatican debacle, people would stop spreading false information that seems to downplay the issue. I know I'd really appreciate that.

If Bill Donahue would shut up, I for one would be grateful.

Mr. Tea
18-04-2010, 10:05 AM
For FUCK'S SAKE. I never said Droid was "excusing" anything. I said the language he was using, and the bogus hearsay "statistics" were the same statistics the Vatican was using to make excuses for itself.

Can you people read?

You said "Does any of this excuse the past several hundred years of cover up?", in a post specifically replying to droid. If you weren't accusing him of "excusing" the Vatican, who were you accusing exactly? And if you weren't saying anyone was excusing it, why use the word at all? Putting something in context is not the same as saying it's acceptable, at least not in my book.

swears
25-04-2010, 12:58 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8642404.stm

The Foreign Office apologise for saying outrageous, preposterous things like: the Vatican should sack paedophile priests, endorse condoms, help victims of abuse, bless gay marriage... where will this madness end?

Mr. Tea
04-05-2010, 01:24 PM
May be of interest to droid and nomad:

"[C]urrent research and expert opinion suggest that men within the Catholic Church may be no more likely than others to abuse, and that the prevalence of abuse by priests has fallen sharply in the last 20-30 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8654789.stm

Not that this comes anywhere close to "excusing" abuse, obviously - and as others have pointed out in this thread, most people don't claim to be doing the work of God in their daily 9-to-5. Worth noting, too, that one of the reports mentioned was "[c]ommissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops", although apparently conducted by an independent body and several other sources are mentioned in the article. Also a nice rebuttal of this repuslive equiviocation of gays with paedophiles.

scottdisco
12-05-2010, 07:52 PM
Consider the ludicrous ideology that made it possible: The Catholic Church has spent two millennia demonizing human sexuality to a degree unmatched by any other institution, declaring the most basic, healthy, mature, and consensual behaviors taboo. Indeed, this organization still opposes the use of contraception: preferring, instead, that the poorest people on earth be blessed with the largest families and the shortest lives. As a consequence of this hallowed and incorrigible stupidity, the Church has condemned generations of decent people to shame and hypocrisy—or to Neolithic fecundity, poverty, and death by AIDS. Add to this inhumanity the artifice of cloistered celibacy, and you now have an institution—one of the wealthiest on earth—that preferentially attracts pederasts, pedophiles, and sexual sadists into its ranks, promotes them to positions of authority and grants them privileged access to children. Finally, consider that vast numbers of children will be born out of wedlock, and their unwed mothers vilified, wherever Church teaching holds sway—leading boys and girls by the thousands to be abandoned to Church-run orphanages only to be raped and terrorized by the clergy. Here, in this ghoulish machinery set to whirling through the ages by the opposing winds of shame and sadism, we mortals can finally glimpse how strangely perfect are the ways of the Lord.

nabbed from here (http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/harris-on-the-vatican-scandal/)

john eden
16-09-2010, 12:39 PM
so it seems like the papal visit has started well with the UK being compared to a 3rd world country because of all the darkies what live here, filled up with aggressive atheists.

Apparently he likened atheists to Nazis in his first speech also:

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/legal-and-constitutional/pope-arrives-in-britain-warning-of-atheist-extremism--$21383924.htm

And people wonder why we're aggressive!

droid
16-09-2010, 01:23 PM
May be of interest to droid and nomad:

"[C]urrent research and expert opinion suggest that men within the Catholic Church may be no more likely than others to abuse, and that the prevalence of abuse by priests has fallen sharply in the last 20-30 years."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8654789.stm


Yeah thanks. The SAVI study (the largest study into sexual abuse ever completed in Ireland) pretty much says the same thing (in fact it points out that clergy are 'underepresented'), as do several studies from the UK and US - but as I said, who can be arsed?

john eden
16-09-2010, 01:33 PM
You can always rely on power electronics stalwarts The Grey Wolves to get to grips with the nuances of these things:

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=182740

grizzleb
16-09-2010, 02:03 PM
http://randshit.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/popebear.jpg

Slothrop
16-09-2010, 02:05 PM
I stopped liking him when he stopped smoking dope.

martin
17-09-2010, 11:32 AM
He cracks me up, he's such a troll. I'm convinced he's part of some Vatican City wind-up...seeing how far they can push it. And he had a pop at BA as well, brilliant...

Sectionfive
17-09-2010, 01:09 PM
Cut him some slack, he did warn the young to resist 'destructive' temptations didn't he.

swears
18-09-2010, 02:48 AM
Having the pope moan about "aggressive secularism" is quite a coup for Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, no?
Best not to even acknowledge it, you'd have thought.

john eden
18-09-2010, 09:53 AM
Having the pope moan about "aggressive secularism" is quite a coup for Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, no?
Best not to even acknowledge it, you'd have thought.

I think this is a crucial point - the visit has been overshadowed by the reaction, hasn't it? Mainstream media is about half and half handshaking vs debate, but net stuff has been a barrage of secularism and so on (or at least it has for me).

credit crunch
19-09-2010, 10:30 AM
does this mean I'm not allowed to like nuns on the run anymore?

Mr. Tea
19-09-2010, 07:49 PM
New and aggressive atheism vs. old and (passive-)aggressive religion - take your pick!


They also said [Cardinal Kaspar's] "Third World" comment referred to the UK's multicultural society.

Yes, we have blacks here and everything. Heaven forfend! - edit: cross-post with JE

IdleRich
19-09-2010, 08:10 PM
Pleased to see my flatmate on channel four news brandishing a banner denouncing the Pope. He was actually just holding it for a friend but there is some irony in a thirty year old man who is dating a sixteen year old condemning paedophilia.

swears
19-09-2010, 08:18 PM
Pleased to see my flatmate on channel four news brandishing a banner denouncing the Pope. He was actually just holding it for a friend but there is some irony in a thirty year old man who is dating a sixteen year old condemning paedophilia.

That's not paedophilia, that's just a bit creepy and sad. When I hang around with my 18 y/o brother and his mates they seem like babies. Maybe she's really mature for a GCSE student, though. :D

Mr. Tea
19-09-2010, 09:50 PM
She is pretty mature. She's not a GCSE student though, she got expelled.

swears
19-09-2010, 11:44 PM
There was a girl in my sixth form that everybody fancied who'd get picked up by her 26 year old boyfriend in his 5 series after classes. I don't blame her, we were all dorks.

Dr Awesome
20-09-2010, 12:14 AM
She is pretty mature. She's not a GCSE student though, she got expelled.

:p

Haha (I think).

I went to school with a girl (17ish at the time) who had a boyfriend in his 30s. Interestingly enough he also had a M5... Maybe there's a common factor here?

I'm 21 and consider my current thing (18) to be at the extreme younger end of the spectrum of girls I'd go for...

Slothrop
20-09-2010, 12:26 AM
Universal dirty old man formula = divide by two add 7.5

Mr. Tea
20-09-2010, 10:57 AM
Universal dirty old man formula = divide by two add 7.5

I think a good rule of thumb is: if you're worried about half a year, she's too young.

mms
20-09-2010, 12:54 PM
girls at my sixform used to basically compete to see who could go out with the oldest man pretty much - i recall one local singer songwriter type getting all the teen tang he could dream of.

Mr. Tea
20-09-2010, 01:18 PM
So while everyone thinks the problem is lecherous older men, it's actually lecherous teenage girls...

zhao
21-09-2010, 08:52 AM
i look forward to being a dirty old man. hopefully the dj type will replace the singer songwriter type in 20 years.

Mr. Tea
21-09-2010, 10:09 AM
As it happens I'm reading Lolita at the moment - it's quite funny to imagine Humbert Humbert as an ageing DJ.

BareBones
23-09-2010, 11:47 AM
dawkins ain't mincing his words
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/22/ratzinger-enemy-humanity

Mr. Tea
23-09-2010, 12:18 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/22/ratzinger-enemy-humanity

Amen (ahem) to that.

swears
25-09-2010, 01:55 AM
Max Dunbar on the money like Houblon:

http://maxdunbar.wordpress.com/2010/09/19/betrayal-conspiracies-sacrilege-heresies/

Richard Seymore being a tedious dickweed as usual:

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/09/papists-secularists-and-capitalists.html

luka
25-09-2010, 03:47 AM
that dawkins article is dreadful. its clumsy polemic, factually incorrect and simple minded. dont encourage him.

crackerjack
25-09-2010, 08:41 PM
that dawkins article is dreadful. its clumsy polemic, factually incorrect and simple minded. dont encourage him.

Agreed. His cherry-picking of facts and quotes does him no favours at all.

Mr. Tea
26-09-2010, 12:49 PM
I'll grant that he's obviously cherry-picking, because everyone who wants to make a point does that, but what has he written that's factually incorrect?

crackerjack
26-09-2010, 10:15 PM
I'll grant that he's obviously cherry-picking, because everyone who wants to make a point does that, but what has he written that's factually incorrect?

It's just a completely dishonest portrait of Hitler's relationship with religion and the CC's relationship with Nazism. Catholics voted Nazi at 1/3 the rate of non-Catholics ( the Nazi party actually scored very badly in Bavaria in 30 and 32) and some of their leading lights in the early years like Ludendorff hated the Catholic church almost as much they hated Jews.

Catholic "support" for the Nazis came about after 33 and was about cynical pragmatism and survival. Before that they'd barred senior Nazis from receiving sacraments.

Hitler's attitude to religion was ambivalent, even confused, but they were much too suspicious of established hierarchy to as cosy with Catholicism as he implies.

Mr. Tea
26-09-2010, 10:43 PM
Looking back through the article, Dawkins doesn't really dwell on alleged Catholic support for the Nazis; his main thrust is that Hitler sought to claim spiritual and cultural legitimacy for Nazism by appealing to Germany's Catholic heritage. Or southern Germany's Catholic heritage, anyway - Hitler (an Austrian, remember) hated the old Protestant Hanseatic towns in the north of the country and considered them 'un-German'.

And Dawkins is of course quite right to point out that the latent anti-Semitism the Nazis tapped into was the product of centuries of Church-mandated Jew-hating.

And whether the god Hitler believed in was the common-or-garden Christian God or not is really neither here nor there if you're trying to show he wasn't an atheist, which he clearly wasn't.

crackerjack
26-09-2010, 11:20 PM
Looking back through the article, Dawkins doesn't really dwell on alleged Catholic support for the Nazis; his main thrust is that Hitler sought to claim spiritual and cultural legitimacy for Nazism by appealing to Germany's Catholic heritage. Or southern Germany's Catholic heritage, anyway - Hitler (an Austrian, remember) hated the old Protestant Hanseatic towns in the north of the country and considered them 'un-German'.

I don't know where the idea that he hated them comes from - Mein Kampf, I guess - but Nazism evolved a long, long way beyond the walls of his prison cell. The Nazi party was more than just Hitler and those northern Protestant towns (even more so the northern Protestant countryside) were the Nazis' electoral bedrock, in as much as they had one.


And Dawkins is of course quite right to point out that the latent anti-Semitism the Nazis tapped into was the product of centuries of Church-mandated Jew-hating.


Yes, obviously.


And whether the god Hitler believed in was the common-or-garden Christian God or not is really neither here nor there if you're trying to show he wasn't an atheist, which he clearly wasn't.


That depends whether you're the head of the largest, most autocratic Christian church on earth or not ;) Hitler was a confused mystic/agnostic and it's not so surprising the pope should confuse that with godlessness.

I was reading this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-Third-Reich-Richard-Evans/dp/071399648X) at the time this all blew up and it's remarkable the extent to which serious religion is almost entirely absent from Nazi thinking. Dawkins article is just unrecognisable in the big picture.

Mr. Tea
27-09-2010, 12:14 PM
OK, obviously the Nazi party (and the impulses that led to its foundation) predated Hitler and there must have been a considerable variety of opinion even in the top echelons in the party - several members of the Nazi cabinet (Himmler and Hess in particular, I think) were heavily into paganism and the occult, which Hitler himself had little interest in, AFAIK. Whether the current pope would consider this 'godlessness' is of no consequence, I mean that dickhead who wanted to burn the koran probably thinks Muslims are devil-worshippers - doesn't make it true. Even if Dawkins has exaggerated the Nazis' interest in religion that doesn't at all reinforce the pope's claim that it was a "fundametalist atheist" movement. Presumably such a movement would have had a great deal to say about religion, inasmuch as it would be constitute the enemy.

I remember Jonathon Meades talking about Hitler's antipathy towards Germany's northern towns in a documentary about the Hanseatic league - obviously Meades is a bit of a joker but his history is usually pretty well-researched, I think. Though as you say, Nazism was much bigger than just Hitler.

scottdisco
28-09-2010, 10:48 AM
the head of an institution that was at best ambivalent towards the Nazi regime making ahistorical remarks about a country that was not.

i think Shug's summary put it fairly the other week (http://modies.blogspot.com/2010/09/obligatory-popes-visit-post.html).

Sectionfive
18-06-2012, 05:10 PM
Satan up to his old tricks it seems and worse, journalists continue to invent fairytales and repeat legends according to the Vatican. Can't have that


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/18/us-vatican-leaks-idUSBRE85H13Y20120618

droid
19-06-2012, 10:34 AM
Why doesnt the Vatican have a football team? The pope could be manager. Anyone who's been baptised would be eligible to play, so they could poach players from all the top catholic countries.

Could definitely see them making the semis of the euros.

droid
19-06-2012, 10:36 AM
lol


"The Vatican City national football team (Italian: Selezione di calcio della Città del Vaticano) is the football team that represents Vatican City. They are one of only seven fully recognised sovereign states whose national team is not a FIFA member. The others are Monaco, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru and Palau. The football association of Vatican City was founded in 1972. The current president of the FA is Sergio Valci.[1] The team has been managed by Giovanni Trapattoni in the past."

"The Vatican City have played only four full international games, against Monaco in 2002 and 2011, a friendly game against San Marino in 2006, and a friendly game against Palestine in 2010"

mistersloane
20-06-2012, 06:17 PM
"You couldn't even ref a game back in the parish" :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/28/italy.catholicism

Sectionfive
20-06-2012, 07:43 PM
Didn't you tell me once that Father Jack had a trial for Liverpool?

No... no, he was on trial, in Liverpool.

paolo
11-02-2013, 03:16 PM
I didn't know popes could resign

crackerjack
11-02-2013, 05:54 PM
I didn't know popes could resign

Seems like the most humane thing he's done in his eight years in the job. I applaud him for it, even if he is the chief beneficiary.

Leo
11-02-2013, 06:20 PM
cleaning up my linkedin profile, just in case.

Ransbeeck
15-02-2013, 10:04 AM
Hoping for a black pope, since every catholic I know is also an old, frustrated racist. Too bad all the African candidates seem to be even more conservative than Benny.

Mr. Tea
15-02-2013, 10:45 AM
Well the Archbish of York is black, and that's the second-highest post in the Anglican communion, isn't it?

Mr. Tea
18-07-2015, 02:06 PM
Vatican had more than a billion euros off books before financial clean-up (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/16/us-vatican-finances-idUSKCN0PQ1CH20150716)

https://themanthebheastscanttame.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/download1.jpg?w=640