What causes the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to hide the problem of pedophile priests?

[guillaumeb]

My opinion, based on my own reading, is that it is a combination of factors.
There is research into the fact that members of an institution will often cover up illegalities by fellow members of their particular institution.
It does not matter if the institution is a religious group, or branches of the military, or scouting organizations, or show business, or schools, or businesses. The tendency to hide and accept criminal behavior that should be exposed is common to all of these groupings.
Here are only a few examples. Many more are easily discovered.

1) After All This Time, the Military Is Continuing to Hide Its Rape Problem

This comes on the heels of another disturbing expose about the mishandling of sexual assault cases at the Air Force Academy. Most disturbing was the revelation that mental health officials appeared to fabricate records to justify spurious diagnosis of personality disorders to damage and discredit victims. While some important reforms have been made in the five years since the sexual assault scandals at Lackland Air Force Base, the story shows the limits of that progress and the lengths that commands will go to bury rape charges and avoid public scrutiny.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/05/after-all-this-time-the-military-is-continuing-to-hide-its-rape-problem/

2) Boy Scout files reveal long history of child sex abuse cases

Since at least 1919, the Boy Scouts has maintained the internal files to keep suspected pedophiles from re-entering the organization. But in a number of cases, the files show, the organization failed to take proper steps in suspected cases of abuse.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-18/business/sns-rt-us-usa-boyscouts-abusebre89h0zf-20121018_1_abuse-cases-boy-scouts-files-show

3) Schools failing to protect students from sexual abuse by school personnel, federal report says

Hampered by inadequate access to employee background information, school districts unwittingly hire teachers and staff accused of sexually abusing students in other districts and states, the report said. With little training on how to recognize early signs of predatory behavior, school employees don’t always pay attention to a colleague who is “grooming” a student for sexual abuse with inappropriate attention. And some school districts quietly dismiss teachers accused of potential child sexual abuse, without alerting future employers or seeking to revoke teaching credentials, the report said.

https://edsource.org/2014/schools-failing-to-protect-students-from-sexual-abuse-by-school-personnel-federal-report-says/57023


Child abuse in the US

It's hard to imagine someone intentionally hurting a child. Yet nearly 1 million children are abused every year just in the United States alone. And these are only the reported incidents of child abuse — many more cases are unreported and undetected, often because children are afraid to tell somebody who can help.
Most of the time, kids know their abusers and the abuse happens in the home. This makes it difficult for kids to speak up. They may feel trapped by the affection they feel for their abusers or fearful of the power the abusers have over them — so they stay silent. That's why it's especially important to be able to recognize the signs of child abuse….

It would be simpler if all child abusers followed a pattern and were easy to recognize. The truth is that child abusers come from all walks of life. They can be parents, other family members, teachers, coaches, and family friends. Virtually anyone who has access to a child is in a position to mistreat the child. Fortunately, the vast majority of people don't.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/child-abuse.html

Confronting Child Sexual Abuse Statistics All Parents Need to Know

2. 95 percent of sexually abused children will be abused by someone they know and trust (NAPCAN 2009).
3. Of those molesting a child under six, 50 percent were family members. Family members also accounted for 23 percent of those abusing children 12 to 17 years (Snyder, 2000).
5. Males made up 90 percent of adult child sexual assault perpetrators, while 3.9 percent of perpetrators were female, with a further 6 percent classified as ’unknown gender’ (McCloskey & Raphael, 2005).

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/12-confronting-statistics-on-child-sexual-abuse_us_587dab01e4b0740488c3de49
Note: I strongly suggest reading the entire article outlining the other factors.

My thoughts on the issue:

Looking at the last entry, dealing with sexual abuse of a minor, we see that 95% of children are abused by someone that they know, and that 50% of those who molest a young child are family members.

We know that sexualized violence is a human trait.

We know that those who commit sexualized violence are predators.

We know that predators will be found where the potential victims are found. A deer hunter does not hunt for deer in an urban area. The hunter goes where the deer are to be found. And these predators are on the hunt for their victims, so it makes sense that they will be found wherever there are victims.

In the case of the RCC, we have a male priesthood, and if males make up 90% of those who sexually abuse children, it stands to reason that in a predominantly male group, the likelihood of finding predators is apparent.

Again, in the case of the RCC, we have a very hierarchical institution, and given the frequency with which institutions tend to protect their own, we can understand, but we cannot excuse, why the RCC felt it was necessary to close ranks around their offenders.

We also know, as I have pointed out by linking to my posts here, that RCC Canon Law was, and remains, written to keep child abuse “in house”, in the RCC itself.
A similar problem can be found in the military, where Commanders have often hidden sex crimes committed under their command.
A similar problem can be found in the police forces, where some officers obviously have an “us versus them” mentality when they cover for their own.

Almost as if all of these various groupings function somewhat like a tribe, where the interests of tribe members override other interests.

My personal conclusion:
Unfortunately, sexual abuse is a human trait. A certain percentage of humans will abuse others if they can do so. This does not excuse the abuse, nor does it excuse the even more egregious act of covering up sexual abuse.
In my view, the cover up is definitely worse than the crime.
Finally, as I pointed out here and elsewhere, there can be no excusing sexual violence. Sexualized violence is primarily violence and aggression, and we all, as individuals and as members of institutions, have an obligation to expose it when we find it.

[Quemado]

1. Another reason is the shortage of priests

There is a shortage of priests (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church#Europe), and if the church were to embark on a crackdown on pedophile priests, it would exacerbate the shortage.

[guillaumeb]

3. But the issues is not simply that pedophiles exist in the priesthood,

it is that the terrible crimes were covered up by the RCC hierarchy.

[whathehell]

103. Pedophiles exist in every profession and walk of life..

but it is particularly shocking coming from religious institutions and/or those catering to children.

[guillaumeb]

104. Of course.

And cover ups are uncovered in many institutions.

[whathehell]

105. Cover ups, yes

Penn State, Michigan State.

[guillaumeb]

107. And I understand that people hold religious groups to a higher standard,

but doing so avoids the fact that these religious institutions are composed of the same type of imperfect humans who belong to every other group.

[marylandblue]

113. One hopes that there is at least some minimal vetting that goes on

before one is allowed to transubstantiate the bread and wine. But apparently not. The priest is just playing dress-up before a congregation who only THINKS he has some divine power in him, some moral fiber at least slightly stronger than their own. But, no he does not, he has nothing, no special connection, it's all just a fantasy game fit only for children. If that it is the best defense that can be mustered for this decidely unholy game, then let only children be priests and let the men sit back down in the pews to watch the children play.

[guillaumeb]

119. And that is a good suggestion.

That vetting, in the form of background checks and psychological testing might be excellent ideas.

[marylandblue]

121. Those weren't suggestions for a future plan for possible implemention

after a select committee of appropriate officials has contemplated what ought to be done.

That was an assumption that it was always part of being a priest. That it isn't like my first job as busboy where I just walked in and asked if they needed any help. But apparently it is like that.

[guillaumeb]

122. There was no background check when I attended a university.

What percent of institutions utilized background checks 50 years ago?

[marylandblue]

125. This isn't about background checks

It's about all the talk of holy orders and consecration and spiritual guidance and His Holiness the Vicar of Christ on Earth leading and protecting the little human sheep. Maybe those of us went to college in the 20th or 21st century know those are just "metaphors." But most of the flock didn't seem to know that it's just an ordinary man in that getup and there's a 5% chance he is literally buggering an altar boy. Chances of metaphorical buggery are considerably higher than that.

[whathehell]

115. Well

They claim to hold themselves to a higher standard, don't they?

[guillaumeb]

120. Yes they do, but as we all know, intentions and actions do not always accord. eom

[whathehell]

124. Actually

I'm not that comfortable with the 'divergence' in this circumstance.

Becoming a priest isn't just an "intention", it's a commitment and a serious responsibility, especially insofar as it impacts children.

[marylandblue]

128. Well I think priests just intended to get a good job

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2018, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

Guaranteed lifetime employment, great Boss, easy work, good health and retirement benefits, respect in the community, and you don't even have to keep your vows. You do have to work Sundays, but you can take it easy the rest of the week.

[Mariana]

7. This was going on long before there was any shortage of priests. nt.

[Quemado]

10. True, but

the priest shortage is only one reason. There are many reasons why the church is hiding the problem.

I suspect the abuse has been going on a lot longer than the priest shortage, most certainly going back decades, and perhaps centuries.

[guillaumeb]

15. As long as there have been sexual predators,

sexual predation has existed.

[Mariana]

16. This thread is about the protection of the sexual predators, Gil.

That was going on in the Catholic Church long before there was any shortage of priests.

[guillaumeb]

22. I did not claim that a shortage of priests was a factor. eom

[MineralMan]

23. Nor did she claim you said that.

She was replying to a different poster, not you. It is not all about you in the Religion Group, guillaumeb, despite your belief that it is.

[guillaumeb]

132. See posts 16 and 22.

You are incorrect.

[Mariana]

143. Gil has told us he receives numerous personal messages

asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. I suppose all that attention (real or imagined) might contribute to his belief that it is all about him in the Religion group.

[California_Republic]

2. Excellent analysis. Maybe you can recommend changes.

In my view the institutions believe two things:

- the public information will harm the institution.
- they can correct the issue


How do you change that with in the institution?

[guillaumeb]

4. I agree with your analysis.

But in my view, Canon Law must be changed, as well as an institutional culture that allows for a cover up. All of the responses, from moving offenders to denying that a problem even exists, are typical behavior for many institutions, but as to how to change such behavior, I have no solutions.


It seems that we cannot change predators, so how do we teach people that institutional and group solidarity cannot be a reason to cover for criminal behavior?

[TlalocW]

5. Uh, money?

It's the reason they shuffle around and hide their assets when a lawsuit does come to fruition, so if they lose, they can plead poverty. Also, if they're successful in hiding them it makes them seem like they're still a moral agency that deserves your money to continue their work.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

6. Agreed. It is one reason.

Not an excuse, there are no excuses. But their decision to cover up the abuses is causing them to pay enormous sums to settle cases.

The cover up was/is ethically and financially terrible.

[BigmanPigman]

11. Yep, money and control/power

and the fear of losing both.

[mitch96]

12. "Uh, money?"

Agree... money and power corrupts.. If you have a good marketing plan that rakes in millions of dollars, why mess it up with admitting wrong doing?? Any $$$ they spend to keep things quiet is just the cost of doing business...
m

[Raven123]

8. Closed, hierarchical concentrated power. As the saying goes, absolute power corrupts absolutely

The very nature of those systems contributes to abuse by those with nefarious intent. Transparency and accountability outside of those systems is needed.

[guillaumeb]

9. Agreed.

And perhaps, as another here suggested, a Vatican III Council is required.

But high ranking members of hierarchies resist losing their power.

[No Vested Interest]

38. High ranking members of any organization believe that they know better than the

rank and file. After all, they reason, they are on the inside and know details that regulars don't know.

I don't have the answers to this human failing.

[guillaumeb]

40. Nor do I.

And yes, as you pointed out, many members of various hierarchies in every institution do feel special.

[pansypoo53219]

13. centuries of patriarchy.

[guillaumeb]

14. In every institution.

And most sexual predators are male.

[Major Nikon]

17. Are RCC child rape apologists part of the institution of child rape?

I mean if someone continuously makes excuses for the RCC's child rape problem, aren't they in "fact" part of the problem?

Perhaps that needs some more research. None of the examples you gave address it.

[guillaumeb]

24. Anyone who fails to report abuse, no matter the institution,

is complicit. And that includes the major place where abuse is found. In the family.

And I did state that, in my view, the cover up is even worse.

[Major Nikon]

61. Why am I not surprised you didn't answer the question?

[MineralMan]

65. See #54

[Lordquinton]

67. You agree both Pope's are culpable?

And should be tried as such?

[edhopper]

18. Is there a God

who's main representative on earth is the head of the RCC?
If so, has this God sat by while this institution enabled child rape?
If not, why is this institution given any moral authority or deference in any matter?

[guillaumeb]

25. Catholics believe that the Pope, like Peter, is the head of the RCC.

As to the Creator's thoughts on this matter, I only know that Jesus gave to Peter the position of the head of the church.

[MineralMan]

27. Once again, you have failed to understand the question.

Here, I'll put it in other words:

Does the Pope not answer to the deity he represents? Does that deity not pay attention?

[guillaumeb]

30. Once again, you failed to understand my answer.

edhopper asked me to answer for the Creator.

[edhopper]

60. At least now we know

a belief you hold.

So why does God allow the head of his Church to enable child rapists?

[guillaumeb]

70. The Creator might feel that free will is an important aspect of sentience. eom

[edhopper]

74. Did the children who were raped have free will

to not be raped? Or is the free will of the rapist Priest more important to God than that of the children.

I also wonder if you agree that some people (like pedophiles) are mentally compelled to deviant behavior?

If so, where is the free will if it is mental illness?

And why do God's emissaries on Earth use their free will to protect the rapists?

If they do God's work, than God wants the rapists protected.

If they don't then what is the purpose of the RCC?

[guillaumeb]

78. Free will does not mean freedom "from" anything.

From my reading, it does seem as if pedophiles are serial offenders. Again, my reading reveals that many pedophiles were abused as children, but many is not all.

As to the why of the cover up, I asked and attempted to answer that here.

The purpose of the RCC, as far as I remember, is to act as an organization that works to fulfill the Creator's wishes.

[edhopper]

93. So they think the Creator

wishes them to enable child rapist?

And the Creator ismfine with that?

[guillaumeb]

97. I cannot answer the last question.

My guess, in the first instance, is that they place institutional protection above all else.

[edhopper]

99. Above their fealty to God?

Doesn't sound like an organization that deserves to exist anymore.

Do you think they do?

[guillaumeb]

101. What individuals do reflects on themselves.

The cover up reflects on the individuals doing the cover up.

[edhopper]

106. So the RCC

does get a pass.

It's just individuals within.

Thanks for showing us where you stand.

[guillaumeb]

108. The RCC has existed for 2,000 years.

And the individuals who were in the RCC 2,000 years ago are long dead, but human behavior seems to be quite consistent.

Would you suggest that because there are many cases of sexual predation of children in schools that schools should be eliminated?

Would you suggest that because most cases of sexual predation of children occur in the family that families should be eliminated?

[edhopper]

111. any school

that enables child rape should be disbanded.

any family that enables child rape should be disbanded

any religious organization that enable child rape should be disbanded.

do you think such schools, families and churches should go on unscathed.

sounds like that is what you are advocating.

[guillaumeb]

117. And how would this solution be implemented? eom

[marylandblue]

112. Institutions HAVE been disbanded before or leadership completely replaced

And their deaths serve as examples for future leaders to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors. So disbanding an entire institution is not as strange or ineffective as.you make it sound. Though, that will never happen to the RCC as long as people show up every Sunday. Which maybe someday they won't.

[MineralMan]

19. Entitlement. As representatives of God on Earth,

the RCC can do no wrong, it believes. So, when its minions offend common decency, the organization sweeps such offences under its many rugs.

There is a difference between a religion that is the largest denomination of Christianity and the other groups you name. The RCC operates under the principle that it is doing God's work. It demands that it be trusted and treated with worshipful respect. That allows its workers to gain the trust of victims.

Comparing the Roman Catholic Church with secular organization ignores the RCC's insistence that it is acting in God's name.

There is no equivalency.

This is simply more whataboutism.

[marylandblue]

20. That's a point usually ignored in this forum

Religious leaders in general claim moral superiority, and people give deference to that claim. The defense that a religious institution is no worse than any other is no defense at all.

It's like arguing it's okay for a soldier to be AWOL because civilians also quit their jobs. Or it's okay for the President to hire his son-in-law because that's a normal arrangement in private business. We expect more from certain people than others. This too is universally human.

[MineralMan]

21. Exactly.

[guillaumeb]

28. We expect more,

but is it logical to expect that from imperfect humans?

What is generally ignored in this forum, as some have ignored already here, is that covering up for criminal behavior is found in many institutions. It seems to be a human tendency, and expecting humans to not behave as humans is ridiculous.

[marylandblue]

32. Yes, it is logical to expect more from some not others.

Do you expect your doctor to smoke? What about your garbage collector? Do you expect teachers to protect children from Boko Haram, or the other way around? Do you say, "Saudi Arabia uses capital punishment, therefore I expect Sweden to use it too?"

Expecting the same thing of all humans and all human institutions is not itself a human trait. I am not actually aware of anyone who consistently argues in that manner. Except you. Which I've learned to expect.

[guillaumeb]

35. There are certain human behaviors that seem to be constant.

And sexual predation is one.
As are cover ups by fellow members of an institution.

Using your examples, would you expect that no doctor smokes?
Would you expect that sexual abuse is unknown in the teaching profession?

[marylandblue]

39. Answer my question.

Do you expect YOUR doctor to smoke? [emphasis added] It's a yes or no question that deserves a yes or no answer. I suspect you won't answer because the answer is obviously "no," but that answer would not allow you to maintain the myth of moral equivalence.

[guillaumeb]

41. My doctor does not smoke.

Do you expect that all doctors do not smoke, or are you aware that doctors, like everyone else, are not perfect?

Again, I never expect perfection. And as much as I find sexual predation to be horrible behavior, I am not surprised to find that it happens. And I am not surprised to find cover ups.

[marylandblue]

42. I did not ask about what your actually doctor does, but what your expectations of him are.

I expect my doctors not to smoke. I believe it disqualifies them as doctors, no matter what their talents are. I believe doctors who smoke should have their medical licenses revoked. I don't expect them to be perfect, but if they want to smoke, then they need to enter some other profession. Pharmaceutical sales perhaps.

I don't care if my garbage collector smokes. Do you?

Or, asked another way, is it morally worse for a doctor to smoke than a garbage collector? I say it is in fact morally worse.

[guillaumeb]

43. We differ on the doctor question.

And we can both probably agree that priests, and anyone who lectures on morality, should follow what they claim to believe. But imperfection and inconsistency does not surprise me.

[marylandblue]

45. Imperfection and inconsistency do not surprise me either

But I believe that the extent and moral depravity of the Catholic Church scandal exceeds other similar scandals in degree if not in kind.

[MineralMan]

34. 300 priests and 1000+ victims in just one state,

all covered up by the archdiocese for many years. That many imperfect humans? Really? Credulity will not stretch that far.

This is not about human tendencies. It is about a cooperative system hiding evil. Easily recognized evil. In massive numbers, given the size of the sample.

You truly do not understand, I see. But, you have convinced yourself of something.

You're wrong.

[guillaumeb]

37. Again, you demonstrate your misunderstanding.

Or your agenda.

Are there any perfect humans?

There are over 400,000 priests worldwide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage_in_the_Catholic_Church

[edhopper]

94. How many of them being pedophiles

is acceptable for the RCC?

What number of child rapist should we say say is par for the course?

[guillaumeb]

98. No number is acceptable.

But, given that we are dealing with imperfect humans...…...

[edhopper]

100. So the RCC gets a pass

because humans are imperfect and we shouldn't expect them not to put organizational protection over raped children?

[guillaumeb]

102. No one should get a pass.

And I never suggested as much.

[marylandblue]

114. Institutions get a pass with you.

So do ideas. No bad ideas or institutions. Not even lynch mobs. Just people acting as people do. Sociologists just should close up their shops and do something useful. I hear the church needs a few good priests.

[guillaumeb]

118. My post contradicts your assertion. eom

[marylandblue]

171. Yes, because you describe it as unfortunate human trait

Rather than a subcultural phenomenon. Emphasizing the individual downplays factors beyond the indivudual and also blurs the differences between institutions that make it better or worse.

[guillaumeb]

172. It is a trait that exists everywhere.

Did and does the RCC hide the problem? Yes.

[marylandblue]

173. Again, you are overgeneralizing and avoiding significant details in the RCC scandal

You overgeneralize to the point of banality, another aspect of the myth of moral equivalence. As far as you are concerned, it makes no difference if 0.01% of priests took $1 off the collection every Sunday, or 100% were pedophiles. It's all crimes due to human traits and all things every institution would want to cover up. I am really surprised you argue to this extremity of moral equivalence but you do.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. Yes indeed. Religions should be held to higher standards than the groups the OP names

... because as religions they elevate themselves and their social position.

[guillaumeb]

26. Utternonsenseism on your part.

Contextual and necessary is pointing out that institutions demonstrate a tendency to hide wrong doing by members of an institution from the outside public.

If you are unaware of this tendency, more reading is suggested.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

29. So many fallacies in your post. Biggest is "what-about-ism". Nice try, but you failed. . . . nt

[guillaumeb]

31. You failed to understand the post, and the history presented.

Nice try, but you failed.

[MineralMan]

33. So many misunderstanding your post?

Really? I don't think so, guillaumeb. Perhaps you failed to understand it, yourself.

[guillaumeb]

36. No, a very few. You among them.

Among whom we find many who seem to cluster in this forum. So I would say it is more of a small group thing.

edited to add:


You said "so many" when it is only 3 people. Do you feel that 3 is "so many", or are you attempting to sustain a meme?

[MineralMan]

47. ..

[guillaumeb]

49. The only answer that you could have given?

3 posters so far. That certainly is a huge number.

[MineralMan]

50. ..

You understand my meaning.

[Major Nikon]

62. I understood it perfectly

It's not like you are the first one in this group to try and deflect from the RCC's child rape culture. I'm sure you fancy yourself as better than average in that regard, but you're far from it. At least some of the others do a better job of concealing their true motives.

[guillaumeb]

71. I understand your agenda perfectly. eom

[Major Nikon]

76. Opposition to child rape apologia

So while you are casting aspersions on what you think everyone's agenda is, let's not forget what yours is.

Just sayin'

[guillaumeb]

79. And when you find that rape apologia,

let me know and I will join you in opposition.

[Major Nikon]

90. I already did

And yet you keep at it, even doubling down. Very telling that.

[guillaumeb]

95. Right. eom

[keithbvadu2]

46. For all the organizations... 'Protect the institution'... which protects the leaders.

For all the organizations... 'Protect the institution'... which protects the leaders.

[guillaumeb]

48. True, and each such organization is excusing criminal behavior. eom

[AlexSFCA]

51. a bunch of false equivalencies

systematic child abuse and institutional cover up is uniquely RCC problem for many reasons that are RCC specific. This makes RCC a criminal organization unlike the other institutions you had mentioned.

[guillaumeb]

52. Incorrect.

Pointing out the tendency for members of an institution to cover up for fellow members is stating the obvious.

The US military has a long history of sex abuse of members and civilians, and subsequent cover ups.

The situations of each institution will obviously be unique to that institution.

And given that most abuse occurs in the family, does that make families the issue?

Of course not. Predators are the issue, and covering up their acts.

[marylandblue]

53. Yes, families are a major issue, although a very different one from the church

All sorts of terrible things go on in families, and we do not have adequate social resources to address them, but a detailed analysis of families would be beyond the scope of the religion group. But the idea that "of course" families are not an issue can only come from someone who was blessed with a very good one.

[guillaumeb]

54. The real issue is sexual predation.

And where it occurs.

One of my most difficult cases in the union was representing a member who had admitted to assaulting his daughter. While my focus and legal obligation as a Union Representative was on protecting his rights to be represented, I was very uncomfortable.

I spoke privately, at their request, to his wife and daughter, and they wanted his job protected because he was the primary income earner. What a horrible choice, what a terrible position, to be in, for wife and daughter!!

[marylandblue]

55. I know of more cases like that than you do, not all involving sexual abuse

and not all involving difficult financial choices. And what all these have in common is a harmful family dynamic that locks people into bad situations. When sexual abuse occurs within a family it is a much more complex problem than when it occurs elsewhere that does in fact have a lot to do with how our society structures family relationships.

[guillaumeb]

59. Agreed.

[MineralMan]

57. I wish I did not know that about you.

Truly, I do. But, now I do.

[MineralMan]

66. You were "very uncomfortable?"

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2018, 11:44 AM - Edit history (3)

You wrote:

"The real issue is sexual predation.

And where it occurs.

One of my most difficult cases in the union was representing a member who had admitted to assaulting his daughter. While my focus and legal obligation as a Union Representative was on protecting his rights to be represented, I was very uncomfortable.

I spoke privately, at their request, to his wife and daughter, and they wanted his job protected because he was the primary income earner. What a horrible choice, what a terrible position, to be in, for wife and daughter!! "

Do you not understand that victims in such cases often don't want to report those crimes, out of fear? Did that person continue to sexually assault his daughter after that, with impunity? I suggest that your moral obligation was to report that crime to the authorities, not simply to let it go unreported.

What is the difference between what you did and what Catholic priests and bishops do in not reporting such sexual abuse? I'd be interested in your explanation of that. I'll wait here.

I've been thinking about this since yesterday. It kept me awake last night. To me, it seems very much related to the discussion we are having here. I hope you'll respond.

Of course, I recognize that your story may be a fable, provided to make some sort of point. If that is the case, please say so.

[guillaumeb]

75. My rief story was taken from my over 30 years of union representation.

And I was well aware of why victims do not report the crime, but in this case the guilty party had been convicted in court, and sentenced to probation and follow up counseling. Because I did not write that, you were misled by incomplete information, and for that I apologize, but the anecdote was not intended to be a complete case history.

My role was to unsure that the employee's contractual rights were guarded, as was my obligation under law as a union representative.

I hope that this further information makes you feel better.

[MineralMan]

80. Well, lacking that important information, yes, I did not have a complete picture.

That's often the case, I suspect, when reading posts on DU. People often omit important things and give an erroneous impression.

However, I still wonder if that person continued to abuse his daughter. Such is often the case.

[guillaumeb]

81. And for that I apologized.

Because I did inadvertently give an erroneous impression.

And, during my representation process for this incident, I was asked by some of the managers from that office why I would even represent the individual. One even told me in confidence that he himself had been abused in school, and he could not understand how I could do this.

But the law is quite clear on the responsibility of a labor organization to fairly represent.

[AlexSFCA]

56. children cannot serve in US military

you can’t compare sexual abuse of adults to minors. Not to mention priests were involved in production of child pornography on church premises. It makes me sick even typing this.

[guillaumeb]

58. Children attend school, and belong to athletic clubs,

and scouting organizations. And children are raped by military members. Abuse of minors is not confined to the RCC. It happens everywhere.

[Lordquinton]

68. This has to be the biggest stretch I've seen in a long time

Why is it so important to keep religion out of this conversation?

[MineralMan]

69. Because "Creator?"

It's all whataboutism.

"Everybody does it, so don't ask awkward questions, see?"

[Lordquinton]

91. They do always seem to get touchy (no pun intended) when you ask theological questions

Have to talk all around the topic, but never the topic directly.

[guillaumeb]

77. Briefly glance at my own title.

Your question was answered.

[Lordquinton]

92. Your title is what raised my question

You ask about the RCC, then proceeded to spill out a gishgallop of things that aren't the church.

It's mostly rhetorical at this point on my end.

[guillaumeb]

96. Alternatively, you missed the point.

We each have our own opinion.

[Lordquinton]

109. I got your point

You want to avoid discussing how religion plays a role.

[guillaumeb]

110. My suspicion is confirmed.

You missed the point.

Religion is the setting, and sexual predation is the crime.

[Lordquinton]

116. K

[marylandblue]

126. Religion isn't just the setting, it is part of the coverup

The unique circumstances of the church gave it the ability to do a coverup on a larger scale than any other institution in history.

[trotsky]

177. gil doesn't want anyone to talk about that.

Abuse is abuse and it happens everywhere so no one can talk about what made it (and the coverup) unique in the RCC. This is the gospel according to gil.

[thucythucy]

63. Another issue, which I think is pretty much unique to the RCC,

is the requirement that priests be celibate.

It's an impossible requirement, since, as you say, priests are human.

And because priests are human many of them (perhaps as many as half) enter into sexual relationships at some point during their service. Most often these are with consenting adults, but even these need to be concealed from the hierarchy, which itself is practiced in looking the other way. This all fosters a culture of denial, of secrecy, of "I won't squeal about you if you don't squeal about me" or "people in glass houses..."

This aspect of the issue was brought up in the film "Spotlight."

Just to be clear, I'm NOT saying that celibacy causes child abuse or in any way justifies it. But what the celibacy requirement does is make many priests into liars and frauds. Much as prohibition led to political corruption, the celibacy requirement leads to ethical corruption.

And having an all-male hierarchy makes it all exponentially worse.

[guillaumeb]

72. Very well argued.

And, given that males represent a large proportion of sexual predators, an all male priesthood makes it worse.

[trotsky]

64. Their religious belief that canon law supersedes secular law.

Last edited Tue Sep 4, 2018, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Your post doesn't even attempt to answer the question, you only launched into a #Whataboutism tirade.

Since this is the Religion group, it's worth analyzing what makes the abuse that occurs within religious organizations unique. Evidently you'd rather not allow people to talk about that. That seems rather telling.

[guillaumeb]

73. I have already posted about Canon Law in another post.

And you responded in that post. So your last comment is rather puzzling, at best.

And I am attempting to answer it here.

And finally, you clearly misunderstand the nature and purpose of using the tu quoque fallacy.

[trotsky]

82. And you started a new thread to try and set the terms of the discussion to exclude religion.

As you tend to do.

[guillaumeb]

83. And I titled it "What causes the Roman Catholic Church...etc".

Again, given that I discuss the RCC in this post, your further response is puzzling, at best.

[trotsky]

84. But you tried to exclude RELIGION from the discussion, despite this being the RELIGION group.

In accordance with your obvious agenda.

And before you try to pull the "no u" gradeschool defense, yes, I'm guilty as charged of having an agenda to discuss RELIGION in the RELIGION group. How terrible of me!

[guillaumeb]

86. No, you are simply trying to convince yourself, in spite of the evidence of the actual post,

that what I wrote is actually something else.

And I feel that you have convinced yourself.

[trotsky]

87. OK.

You've resorted to one of your many surrender retorts, so this is at an end.

Thanks for showing once again you have no interest in actual dialog. You just want to silence the viewpoints you don't want to hear.

[guillaumeb]

89. You are amazing.

Simply amazing.

[marylandblue]

142. Your analysis is superficial and incomplete

The only thing you pointed to was canon law and it's similarity to military law. But there are important differences. And also there are other causes of the RCC scandal that are unique to it as a religious institution and have made it worse than other abuse scandals.

[guillaumeb]

148. My analysis, like every post at DU,

is not an exhaustive analysis stretching for hundreds of pages.

We both know that.

An analysis that the RCC should be shut down is also superficial and incomplete, but I have read just that here a few times.

[marylandblue]

170. Between hundreds of pages and a single cause -canon law

And one not even saying much about Canon Law except that it has similarity to military law, there can be more complete analysis that accounts for more contributing factors and still fit within the short format of internet discussions.

As for shutting down the RCC there is already a lively thread on that which you join, but I choose not to.

[Act_of_Reparation]

85. TL;DR

I'll scope out the abstract when it hits ASR.

[trotsky]

88. I'll give you the TL;DR summary:

Religion is to be given credit for good things, but it is NEVER a factor when it comes to bad things. Then it's just human nature.

[guillaumeb]

123. This might help you understand this post:

Whataboutism gives a clue to its meaning in its name. It is not merely the changing of a subject ("What about the economy?" to deflect away from an earlier subject as a political strategy; it’s essentially a reversal of accusation, arguing that an opponent is guilty of an offense just as egregious or worse than what the original party was accused of doing, however unconnected the offenses may be.
The tactic behind whataboutism has been around for a long time.
Rhetoricians generally consider it to be a form of tu quoque, which means "you too" in Latin and involves charging your accuser with whatever it is you've just been accused of rather than refuting the truth of the accusation made against you. Tu quoque is considered to be a logical fallacy, because whether or not the original accuser is likewise guilty of an offense has no bearing on the truth value of the original accusation.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/whataboutism-origin-meaning

It is a tactic often used in debate and elsewhere in response to an accusation. And the person using it hopes to distract from the original accusation.

It is this intent to distract that makes it a fallacy.

In my post about the RCC and pedophile priests, I admit to the truth of the accusations, and point out in another post that RCC canon Law is an obstacle to exposing the truth of pedophile priests. There can be no intent to distract because my posts talk about obstacles and predation.

In that post, I also point out that the tendency to cover up wrong doing is present in many other institutions, as well as in the family where most child molestation takes place.

But nowhere do I excuse predation, and nowhere do I deny that it has occurred, thus tu quoque does not apply.

[marylandblue]

127. You are denying (or simply ignoring) the vast scale of this conspiracy

That exceeds anything the boy scouts or your neighbor did or ever could do.

[guillaumeb]

130. This post, my own, refutes what you wrote. eom

[marylandblue]

141. An example of you denying or ignoring the scale is here

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=292843

You said that you read that 3000 priests actually abused children. Interesting choice. Of all the available estimates it is by far the lowest and also happens to come from the RCC itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases


Independent estimates are higher. One from Australia and one from the USA estimate 7% and 4% respectively. The Pennsylvania grand jury found 300 priests abusive in the 6 diocese they looked at. I did some rough calculations based on the total number of priests in PA and got an estimate of 5%. There are more than 6 diocese in PA and the grand jury thought they did not find all the abusive priests in those 6 so the actual percentage is probably higher.

[Lordquinton]

144. You know, he quoted that to me the other day

I replied with a researched, lengthy post that broke down why it was wrong for him to use that as a basis for claims.

He ignored it.

[guillaumeb]

147. If it is 7%, what of the other 93%

Is every one of the non-abusers guilty of a cover-up?

[marylandblue]

158. Before I answer that, first you have to admit that

intentionally or not, you chose to use the lowest and most biased available estimate, which has the effect of minimizing the problem. You did it even after Lordquinton provided better statistics for you. Again it may have been unintention, nonetheless it has an effect.

[guillaumeb]

162. There are many cources, and all of them are estimates.

And no matter if it is 3, or 4, or 5, or 7%, what of the vast majority? Are they all culpable?

[marylandblue]

165. The estimates matter, as does the source

Other stimates I've seen are 4 to 7 per cent. You chose less than 1% from the most biased possible source. This is an issue. And actually, that's over a 50 year period, more than a complete generation, so we are talking about more than 800,000 priests worldwide which works out to 0.375%, or less then 1/10 od the next lowest estimate. That's a big difference and indicates a much bigger problem that you initially admitted. If this difference doesn't matter to you then nothing else I say about numbers will matter either.

[guillaumeb]

166. And my final question, of culpability.

Even if it is/was 10%, that leaves 90% who may or may not have been aware of the problem, and its extent.

[marylandblue]

167. you don't admit the truth, you don't get an answer

Since any answer I give is just another estimate, which appear to be fungible for you.

[guillaumeb]

168. What truth?

The truth that the RCC hides/avoids the issue of pedophile priests?
The issue that this same thread addresses?

[marylandblue]

169. That you chose the lowest, most biased available estimate

Perhaps numbers mean nothing to you, but they are very important to me. Good information sourcing is also important to me The difference between 0.375% and 10% is huge in my book, vastly significant in extremely important ways, and your unwillingness to even acknowledge this particular issue is very disturbing to me. Sorry, it's the way my brain works.

[trotsky]

129. Yep, that's the definition. Thanks for confirming it's what you do.

You ARE distracting. You ARE trying to change the subject. In the Religion group, it's entirely on topic to discuss religion's role in crimes of abuse and violence - and the coverup of said crimes. But you CONSTANTLY try to change the subject away from religion, and you CONSTANTLY employ propaganda tools like whataboutism and logical fallacies in order to do so.

In my post about the RCC and pedophile priests, I admit to the truth of the accusations

How noble of you! But then again, no one has accused you of not doing so.

and point out in another post that RCC canon Law is an obstacle to exposing the truth of pedophile priests

Gee, thanks for acknowledging an obvious reality! But what you WON'T admit, and what you WON'T allow anyone else to note, is that canon law (AND the insistence that it supersedes secular law) is a RELIGIOUS belief and part of the RELIGION of Catholicism. That's what I'm telling you, and that's why you piss people off when you go on these tangential "but I didn't really say this thing that no one claimed I did but I'm going to frame it that way for my purposes of playing the victim" bullshit straw man posts.

Be fucking honest and straightforward for ONCE, guillaumeb.

But nowhere do I excuse predation, and nowhere do I deny that it has occurred

Literally no one has said you "excuse predation" OR that you "deny that it has occurred" - that is a putrid lie and a straw man.

What you DO engage in, however, is the exculpation of religion as a contributing factor in abuse scandals like the RCC's. Since you can't argue that point logically, you employ dishonesty and deceit. This post stands as further proof.

[guillaumeb]

131. You see what you wish to see. Or need to see.

And respond accordingly.

And that explains it all.

[trotsky]

134. A non-response.

Because you can't respond.

[guillaumeb]

135. My feeling is that you are a non-literalist.

And no matter the actual words on the page, you will find what you wish to find to support your narrative.

[trotsky]

137. HAHAHAHA

[guillaumeb]

149. My observation was not intended as an insult.

And I admit to not being a Biblical literalist.

[MineralMan]

152. Do you believe anything that is written in the Bible?

C'mon, guillaumeb. Fess up.

[guillaumeb]

154. Yes, I believe in the message of Jesus.

And I will summarize it here as do to others....etc. That is not the entirety of it, but it is not my intention to write "Guill's concise summary of belief".

[MineralMan]

156. Jesus is supposed to have said many things. Which part of his "message"

do you take as literal?

Again, I take nothing as literal or even generally truthful, as I have said many times. I am attempting to ascertain what it is that you believe. So far, I have no idea whatsoever.

For example, do you believe that Jesus is part of the godhead? Do you believe that he is the only path to some sort of eternal life? That's part of his "message," as recorded in the Gospels. It's a fundamental believe of Christianity. So, do you believe that?

[marylandblue]

159. Guill's Concise Summary of Belief would in fact be a useful

guide to future discussions, since most of us know very little about what you believe. If you choose to provide one, it should be in a new OP, since it would be off topic here.

[Mariana]

179. I've often asked Gil to provide a glossary

since, as you have seen, he frequently assigns his own personal definitions to common English words that conflict with the definitions found in dictionaries. To date, he has not provided one.

He has also been very evasive about his own particular religious beliefs. He must think it would be very embarrassing indeed for him to reveal what they really are.

[marylandblue]

180. I don't think he has any real religious beliefs

He has a generic belief in a generic religion, that has utterly banal beliefs that can't be defended, but nobody really disagrees with. It's a religion the way porridge is food.

[trotsky]

175. Then you are a literalist.

You take at least part of the bible literally.

Tripped up by your worst nemesis again. Yourself.

[MineralMan]

138. Wait...weren't you just calling us "literalists" the other week?

Please make up your mind, guillaumeb. Find a path and stick to it, OK?

[Mariana]

139. It must be very hard to keep all of this straight, MineralMan.

Tangled web, and all that.

[MineralMan]

140. I'm thinking I might need index cards

or something to help sort things out...

[guillaumeb]

150. Many of the atheists here insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So yes, you are a literalist. Please try to remember your own arguments.

[MineralMan]

151. Actually, we don't take any of the Bible literally.

In fact, we don't believe that it's anything but a book written and edited by a long chain of humans. Many religionists, however, do take it literally. Not all, but many. Most Christians, for example, claim to believe that Jesus spoke the words attributed to him in the Gospels. They don't do as he advised them, but they say they believe that he said those things.

Others believe that the Genesis stories are actually what happened. There are many denominations that insist that is so.

We atheists respond to what religionists claim. We have asked you, for example, many times what parts of the Bible you believe are true. You consistently refuse to answer that question, so we don't know. That's OK, but means that what you believe is actually unknown to us.

Me? I think the Bible is a construct, built up from oral tradition and questionable original text sources. I believe none of it. I think it's literally bogus in its entirety.

Goodbye.

[guillaumeb]

153. I have been asked to list exactly which verses I take literally.

That is a nonsensical request.

[MineralMan]

155. That is not what I asked you.

I'm just one person. I asked a much more general question, which you have refused to answer many times. What I take from that is that you have no real beliefs at all. Neither do I. I'm an atheist. But, you claim or have claimed to be a Christian. Do you at least believe that Jesus spoke the words recorded as his in the New Testament? That's a simple question.

Will you answer? Or are you "ashamed of the Gospel?"

[marylandblue]

160. It's not nonsense at all. In fact you are the only Christian I know

who can not answer the question. You don't have to provide a list, but when asked about a specific verse most Christians can answer if it is literal or not.

[guillaumeb]

163. And I have responded to specifics,

but that does not mean that I will respond to a general request.

[marylandblue]

164. No, you often haven't, but that's off topic

I'll remember your stated willingness to answer next time it is relevant.

[trotsky]

178. "Many of the atheists here insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible."

FYI, that is a complete falsehood. A straw man that you employ repeatedly despite being told you're wrong.

[trotsky]

176. The only thing gil is consistent about...

is dehumanizing those who disagree with them ("the choir), and engaging in Trumpian propaganda techniques (whataboutism).

[Lordquinton]

145. Wait, what?

Like actually what?

[guillaumeb]

133. You stated:

Literally no one has said you "excuse predation" OR that you "deny that it has occurred" - that is a putrid lie and a straw man.

And yet, in this post, in this thread, exactly that has been alleged in posts #62,76,90, and 114.


So I can conclude that
1) You did not read the entire thread, but felt comfortable making your assertion, or,
2) You overlooked these 4 posts, or
3) You explain to me why you made this claim.

[trotsky]

136. You are once again completely mistaken and imagining persecution where it doesn't exist.

#62 accuses you of "deflect(ing) from the RCC's child rape culture". That does not mean you have excused "predation" (sic) or "deny that it has occurred." You are simply DEFLECTING from it. Making people look elsewhere. Do you understand the difference?

#76, Major Nikon says his agenda is "Opposition to child rape apologia." Apologia is "a desire to make clear the grounds for some course, belief, or position". In this case, concerning child rape in the RCC. Your belief is that the particular scandal engulfing the RCC is no different than reports of child abuse in public schools, or sexual harassment in the military. So yeah, you're engaging in apologia. That does not mean you have excused "predation" (sic) or "deny that it has occurred." You are simply DEFLECTING from it. Making people look elsewhere. Do you understand the difference?

#90 contains no claim whatsoever. You must have given me an incorrect post number.

#114 contains no claim about you either excuse "predation" (sic) or "deny that it has occurred."

So your conclusion is pathetically wrong.

[guillaumeb]

146. Your further conclusion that I am deflecting is proven false by my post.

A weak try.

[MineralMan]

157. Yes, you have convinced yourself

of that. You are, however, incorrect.

[guillaumeb]

161. 2 weak attempts might make harmony,

but they do not change the fact that you are incorrect.

[trotsky]

174. I yield to your superior argument consisting of "no u."