Fire fe de Vatican

[nomadthethird]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Why dont you just quote some of the 'thousand people' you trust before him?

 

[nomadthethird]

Why dont you just quote some of the 'thousand people' you trust before him?

Any of the ones on here 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 argument or related fallacy innit?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Pretty classic example of a 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]

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]

Lol

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]

"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]

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]

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.