I'll comment on some quotes from here: http://www.smh.com.au/world/john-paul-a-step-closer-to-sainthood-20110501-1e2q3.html
QuotePope John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Church's biggest saint-maker, will be elevated within a step of sainthood himself in a beatification ceremony today led by his successor, Benedict XVI.
Lovely.
QuoteJohn Paul, history's most travelled pontiff, is on track to become the fastest-made saint since popes took over the process around the year 1200. During his funeral in April 2005, mourners in Rome chanted "Santo Subito", or "Sainthood Now", for the pope, who canonized 482 saints, more than all the other Roman pontiffs combined.
So this sort of thing strengthens the faith of some, but it must do the opposite for others. John Paul's followers find it convenient to credit him with magical powers, this I see as ridiculous, the miracles that are trotted out wouldn't convince any one who didn't want convincing. But this isn't new, I expect the same thing happened with JC.
QuoteBenedict called John Paul an example for the faithful at a time when the church's moral authority has been eroded by the priestly sex-abuse crisis. "Despite all our shame and mistakes, we shouldn't forget that even today there exist illustrious examples of faith -- that even today, there are people who through their faith and love give hope to the world," Benedict, referring to John Paul, said on April 20 at the Vatican.
Ye well maybe he should have used some of his magical powers to heal the pedophiles, or else shown the victims more and perpetrators less of that faith and love.
Quote"He gave hope and strength to Poles at their darkest hour," Andrea Riccardi, an Italian historian and biographer of John Paul, said last month.
I'm not sure this was Poland's darkest hour, but I suppose he helped. I can't say the same for the AIDS crises in Africa and elsewhere.
I didn't know that he had made more saints than all the other popes combined! Bloody Hell.
In fairness to the guy, he was one of the most progressive and thoughtful popes. He was the first to be open about many of the church's shortcomings in the past, and to make any attempt to reconcile them - most obviously their support of slavery, their complicity with the rise of fascism in Europe, and the centuries of antisemitic persecution that they had dished out prior to that. He was certainly better than Cardinal "Palpatine" Ratzinger. I'd say if any pope deserved any respect at all it would be him... though admittedly that's not saying much.
Quote from: Melmoth on May 08, 2011, 07:09:07 PM
In fairness to the guy, he was one of the most progressive and thoughtful popes. He was the first to be open about many of the church's shortcomings in the past, and to make any attempt to reconcile them - most obviously their support of slavery, their complicity with the rise of fascism in Europe, and the centuries of antisemitic persecution that they had dished out prior to that. He was certainly better than Cardinal "Palpatine" Ratzinger. I'd say if any pope deserved any respect at all it would be him... though admittedly that's not saying much.
It bothers me they have to wait centuries, or at least decades to admit their mistakes.
How long do we have to wait until they admit their opposition to birth control is wrong?
If I was a non Catholic Christian I'm sure I'd find that Papal infallibility outrageous.
I understand the Church was becoming more liberal in the 1960s with Paul VI and Vatican II.
# Paul VI (1963-78)
# John Paul I (1978)
# John Paul II (1978-2005)
# Benedict XVI (2005—)
John Paul II was the pope who presided over the wind back of Vatican II, and spreading the fear of hell to Africans.
He gets no points from me.
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=25402
@Pudding: I stand corrected. What a git. :o
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 04, 2011, 01:50:32 PM
QuoteBenedict called John Paul an example for the faithful at a time when the church's moral authority has been eroded by the priestly sex-abuse crisis. "Despite all our shame and mistakes, we shouldn't forget that even today there exist illustrious examples of faith -- that even today, there are people who through their faith and love give hope to the world," Benedict, referring to John Paul, said on April 20 at the Vatican.
Ye well maybe he should have used some of his magical powers to heal the pedophiles, or else shown the victims more and perpetrators less of that faith and love.
When were said victims ever "not shown love" by the church? I talked to a guy when I was in DC on the March for Life, as a child he was sexually abused by a priest. He is still a strong Catholic, and if it wasnt for the
love that he has been shown to him by the church, then he probably wouldnt be a Catholic at all, let alone a Christian.
As for the idea that the perpetrators should not be shown love I will say this: The message of Jesus Christ is that we should love and forgive each other. "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."- Matthew 22:39 "Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me." Matthew 26:28 That's why Christ died, so that sins may be forgiven. Not just the "small stuff" like cursing and the like, but the big stuff too. And who does the Church follow? Jesus Christ.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on May 04, 2011, 01:50:32 PM
Quote"He gave hope and strength to Poles at their darkest hour," Andrea Riccardi, an Italian historian and biographer of John Paul, said last month.
I'm not sure this was Poland's darkest hour, but I suppose he helped. I can't say the same for the AIDS crises in Africa and elsewhere.
The
biographer wasnt talking about modern times, he was referring to how the Blessed John Paul II played a key role in putting an end to communism in Europe; especially Poland.
Heres an article about it: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/01/14/new-details-emerge-of-john-paul-iis-war-against-communism/ (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2011/01/14/new-details-emerge-of-john-paul-iis-war-against-communism/)
I just can't help but imagine somewhere back in Poland is an old dude going, "That guy?! That guy is going to be saint? I went to high school with him and he was a dick!!"
PapistItalian16, I know for me, I get the idea of Christ dieing for sins- all sins, even the big ones- and I think most people probably get that as well. Myself, as an adult raised as a Catholic, parents are still, and grandfather returned to the priesthood after my grandmother died (currently the vicar (sp?) for the Bishop of his diocese), Catholicism is/was fully ingrained in me. It wasn't so much that the priests were abusing the kids, even though I can't quite imagine anything quite as evil, it was that the church covered it up in many cases. So those priests that were sucking on the kids' little peckers, well, they are as God made them, right? But the leaders of the church, this soon-to-be saint at the helm, what was their justification for not sending those pedophiles packing? (And I mean out of the church, not just to another parish, as happened in some cases.)
Quote from: hismikeness on May 19, 2011, 10:14:10 PM
I just can't help but imagine somewhere back in Poland is an old dude going, "That guy?! That guy is going to be saint? I went to high school with him and he was a dick!!"
PapistItalian16, I know for me, I get the idea of Christ dieing for sins- all sins, even the big ones- and I think most people probably get that as well. Myself, as an adult raised as a Catholic, parents are still, and grandfather returned to the priesthood after my grandmother died (currently the vicar (sp?) for the Bishop of his diocese), Catholicism is/was fully ingrained in me. It wasn't so much that the priests were abusing the kids, even though I can't quite imagine anything quite as evil, it was that the church covered it up in many cases. So those priests that were sucking on the kids' little peckers, well, they are as God made them, right? But the leaders of the church, this soon-to-be saint at the helm, what was their justification for not sending those pedophiles packing? (And I mean out of the church, not just to another parish, as happened in some cases.)
I cannot fully speak for the Church, but here is my opinion:
Because the Church doesn't have the right; they can't. Once you are a priest, you are always a priest.
Another point: Think of the Church as a family, If you had a sibling(whom you loved and were very, very close to) and they commited some hienous crime would you just automatically shun them? Would you turn your back on someone who has relied on you for support,
for love? "Et tu Brute?" comes to mind if you were to "kick" them out of the family...
...If these priests were to be "kicked out" it could be viewed as a stab in the back.
If one Priest's sins could not be forgiven, then how could anybodys, whether they be Catholic or not?
In my family, if someone were around kids a lot, let's say like a family member that baby sat, turned out to be someone that sexually abused the kids they were entrusted... I'd tell my entire family that this person is not to be around children, I wouldn't silently move them to another part of the family and let the person sexually abuse more of my family.
Of course that's my family, your family might be different.
Quote from: Davin on May 19, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
In my family, if someone were around kids a lot, let's say like a family member that baby sat, turned out to be someone that sexually abused the kids they were entrusted... I'd tell my entire family that this person is not to be around children, I wouldn't silently move them to another part of the family and let the person sexually abuse more of my family.
Of course that's my family, your family might be different.
That's a good point.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if a Priest is found guilty of being a sex offender, then they do get put on the national US sex offender registry.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 19, 2011, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 19, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
In my family, if someone were around kids a lot, let's say like a family member that baby sat, turned out to be someone that sexually abused the kids they were entrusted... I'd tell my entire family that this person is not to be around children, I wouldn't silently move them to another part of the family and let the person sexually abuse more of my family.
Of course that's my family, your family might be different.
That's a good point.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if a Priest is found guilty of being a sex offender, then they do get put on the national US sex offender registry.
That's not enough. Castration and/or lots of jail time should be added to that. And loads of public humiliation. Oh, and excommunication from the church.
But, once a priest, always a priest. Right?
I guess your god will give them a pass no matter how many childrens' lives they ruin, but I'm the unforgivable one for flat out admitting that I deny your church's holy spirit.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 19, 2011, 11:19:16 PM
That's not enough. Castration and/or lots of jail time should be added to that. And loads of public humiliation. Oh, and excommunication from the church.
But, once a priest, always a priest. Right?
I guess your god will give them a pass no matter how many childrens' lives they ruin, but I'm the unforgivable one for flat out admitting that I deny your church's holy spirit.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Well hello, Mr. Angry...
"Not 100 people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is." -- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
My point in posting this is to state that the Catholic Church is not all made up of child molestors.
From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm)
QuoteUnfortunately, precise data on abuse is not available. Data is largely based on experts' opinions. But perhaps the following might be helpful:
In another essay, we describe various estimates of the percentage of Roman Catholic priests who engage in sexual activities with persons under the age of 18. They range from 0.12% to 6%. In the absence of precise data, a value of 3% might be a reasonable guess.
If the 3% value is accurate, then it is important to remember that 97% of priests are not sexually abusive to children and adults.
In the same essay, investigators have estimated that between 90% and 98% of the abusers victimize post-pubertal adolescents, while the rest assault pre-pubertal children. A value of 95% might be a reasonable guess.
The percentage of males in the general population who sexually abuse young children is unknown. Some estimates are in the range of 1%
If those data are accurate then: About 0.15% of priests sexually abuse young children.
This is perhaps 1/8 the rate of men generally.
Priests have a much lower rate of abusive pedophilia than does the general population of men.
This same article also has some interesting points about this whole topic.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 19, 2011, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 19, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
In my family, if someone were around kids a lot, let's say like a family member that baby sat, turned out to be someone that sexually abused the kids they were entrusted... I'd tell my entire family that this person is not to be around children, I wouldn't silently move them to another part of the family and let the person sexually abuse more of my family.
Of course that's my family, your family might be different.
That's a good point.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if a Priest is found guilty of being a sex offender, then they do get put on the national US sex offender registry.
Yes, but that is only if the church actually reports it. There are various documentaries which have documented cases where the church has covered up offenses and just kept moving the priest to a new town where no one had heard of the previous incidents; all the while more and more kids fell victim. This is why so many people are upset with the catholic church; if they just had some dirty priests who were quickly turned into the courts it wouldn't be as big of a scandal.
Quote from: Whitney on May 20, 2011, 12:07:20 AM
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 19, 2011, 11:09:29 PM
Quote from: Davin on May 19, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
In my family, if someone were around kids a lot, let's say like a family member that baby sat, turned out to be someone that sexually abused the kids they were entrusted... I'd tell my entire family that this person is not to be around children, I wouldn't silently move them to another part of the family and let the person sexually abuse more of my family.
Of course that's my family, your family might be different.
That's a good point.
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that if a Priest is found guilty of being a sex offender, then they do get put on the national US sex offender registry.
Yes, but that is only if the church actually reports it. There are various documentaries which have documented cases where the church has covered up offenses and just kept moving the priest to a new town where no one had heard of the previous incidents; all the while more and more kids fell victim. This is why so many people are upset with the catholic church; if they just had some dirty priests who were quickly turned into the courts it wouldn't be as big of a scandal.
Well, I think that in most cases, what an outsider feels as sexual abuse is actually very different than what the Priest is meaning to do. Generally Priests are veryy friendly people, and that over friendlyness kind of creeps people out sometimes. So then that person begins to get kind of paranoid, and might even start reporting very much innocent things as sexual scandal to the Diocese. The Diocese then does not report it, because in the end, the Diocese's investigation didnt lead to any scandal at all.
As for the people who have claimed to be molested by Priests, well that I cant really explain or defend against.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 12:22:38 AM
As for the people who have claimed to be molested by Priests, well that I cant really explain or defend against.
Yes, molestation claims is I was referring to. Not kindly rubbing a back (in the pat on the back way) or touching a shoulder or even giving a hug...I think all ministers do that whether catholic or not.
Seems appropriate to link this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7397.msg114093#msg114093). Nice timing
Sophus!
Quote from: PapistItalian16Well, I think that in most cases, what an outsider feels as sexual abuse is actually very different than what the Priest is meaning to do.
I don't know man, sexual abuse is in the eye of the abused. I don't think the priests, the church or anyone gets to decide what sexual abuse really
is, but I think most people know it when they hear about it.
I was an altar boy (and was frickin good at it too!) and I came across my share of touchy priests. Didn't bother me... I was also bigger than them.
In no way am I claiming every case went down like this, but I can imagine a priest wielding his power over a youngster and even invoking God's wrath if the child didn't succumb.
In the words of the song
Razorblade by Blue October:
QuoteIn a way, I failed religion
I spit the wine from mouth to cup
And I reached for something more than just your God
Uncle, you spared not your children
And while your praying hands are up
There's no forgiveness for you! You sick fuck!!
It is you that I remember in their bedroom
It is you that took their first away from them
It is you they set their standards to
You wounded them for life
You were a preacher and suppose to be above men
People (innocent children, even) look up to these men for guidance about how to ensure survival of their eternal souls. Sure, a bad batch ruined it for a lot of really great priests, but the church, the employer, if you will, didn't do much to curtail it. It's pretty disgusting, and I find apologists thereof to be the same.
Quote from: hismikeness on May 20, 2011, 01:00:28 AM
Seems appropriate to link this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7397.msg114093#msg114093). Nice timing Sophus!
Quote from: PapistItalian16Well, I think that in most cases, what an outsider feels as sexual abuse is actually very different than what the Priest is meaning to do.
I don't know man, sexual abuse is in the eye of the abused. I don't think the priests, the church or anyone gets to decide what sexual abuse really is, but I think most people know it when they hear about it.
I was an altar boy (and was frickin good at it too!) and I came across my share of touchy priests. Didn't bother me... I was also bigger than them. In no way am I claiming every case went down like this, but I can imagine a priest wielding his power over a youngster and even invoking God's wrath if the child didn't succumb.
In the words of the song Razorblade by Blue October:
QuoteIn a way, I failed religion
I spit the wine from mouth to cup
And I reached for something more than just your God
Uncle, you spared not your children
And while your praying hands are up
There's no forgiveness for you! You sick fuck!!
It is you that I remember in their bedroom
It is you that took their first away from them
It is you they set their standards to
You wounded them for life
You were a preacher and suppose to be above men
People (innocent children, even) look up to these men for guidance about how to ensure survival of their eternal souls. Sure, a bad batch ruined it for a lot of really great priests, but the church, the employer, if you will, didn't do much to curtail it. It's pretty disgusting, and I find apologists thereof to be the same.
They did plenty to curtail it. They put said priests in therapy. OBVIOUSLY therapy didnt work. Now if I was to ask "what would you do?" you guys would obviously say "punish them!" well I was wrong in my earlier post about not being able to kick out priests. The Church can, and they've done it before. They have removed them of their status and title as Priests in the Catholic Church. So then, the "Priest" moves on to another denomination. And then their is nothing the Church can do about it.
Since you guys are all about "expert opinions" I figured I'd leave you with a couple.
Phil Jenkins, Episcopalian Professor of Humanities at Pennsylvania University has stated:
Quote"[his] research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination—or indeed, than non-clergy."
What about the rising amount of sexual abuse in public schools?
Charol Shakeshaft a Professor at Hofstra University whom the Department of Education comissioned to review the availible liturature on said cases, then publish her findings said:
Quote"... the physical sexual abuse of students in public schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by Catholic priests"
And an interesting article on what the Catholic Church
is doing about all the sexual scandals:
http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2154 (http://catholicleague.org/release.php?id=2154)
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 02:36:48 AM
They did plenty to curtail it. They put said priests in therapy. OBVIOUSLY therapy didnt work.
Nope, but I bet it did wonders for
the molested kids. Sheesh. Therapy... [/eye roll]
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 02:36:48 AM
What about the rising amount of sexual abuse in public schools?
What about it? Hardly the same thing. Sure, in both cases abusing an authority is at play, but with the priests, there's
two authorities at play (probably).
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 02:36:48 AM
Charol Shakeshaft a Professor at Hofstra University whom the Department of Education comissioned to review the availible liturature on said cases, then publish her findings said:
Quote"... the physical sexual abuse of students in public schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by Catholic priests"
Startling numbers, certainly. Data is pulled from
reported cases and ALL public officials (including other teachers) are mandatory reporters. I don't think that's the case in the church, is it? I don't remember hearing anything about that in my upbringing, at least.
???
Besides, how many people back then trusted their children to be alone with a priest versus being alone with a teacher? Bet that's changed a bit. There's sickos everywhere, including teachers.
I don't know what the right answer is in a situation like this. If only there was a book of moral teachings, handed down from on high with a list of rules to follow that would spell all this out. Oh, wait,
this rule wasn't in there. My issue isn't with the sicko priests as much as with the corrupt organization that is the church handling it the way they did- which wasn't right and wasn't wrong, but it was way more wrong than right.
Okay, I think at this point we are "beating a dead horse". The fact that the Church hasnt really done anything about the sitution is really starting to upset me, and I'm beginning to side with you guys a little bit. I think that such people that break the sacredness of Holy Orders and abuse it's power should be punished by our law system.
I guess it just makes me wish to strive to be a better Christian, a better Catholic, and a better human being. And hopefully someday, when I' am Ordained into the Priesthood, I will be a better Priest, and people will finally have something good to say about the Church.
Sorry for Hi-Jacking your thread Magic Pudding.
I recall Richard Dawkins saying he was fed up with hearing about Catholic priests being child abusers as they are statistically less likely to abuse than other groups; I think he compared them to teachers. And obviously whatever a person does and exploits to abuse others is one abuse is one too many.
However, I think the reason that the priests get such a tough rap is because they should be perfect examples of moral behaviour, like a police officer. Once a person puts on the trapping of authority society holds them to a higher behavioural code. Thus when they fall from grace they do it from a very high place and they land very heavily indeed.
The press also always like to highlight hypocritical behaviour, because we like to read about it. Thus when uncle Fred fiddles with little Timmy its an issue, but not a public issue of public trust being broken as it would be for a priest.
The behaviour of the Catholic church was wrong because it placed itself above the secular laws of the countries in which it operated. That is totally unacceptable for any organisation to do. The church appears to be attempting to address the issue, but as long as the church attempts to hold a position of moral authority and exemplary ethical behaviour it will be held to a higher standard than mere mortals.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 03:50:57 AM
Sorry for Hi-Jacking your thread Magic Pudding.
I've no problems with it, didn't seem too far off topic, anyway wandering often takes you interesting places.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 20, 2011, 03:50:57 AM
I think that such people that break the sacredness of Holy Orders and abuse it's power should be punished by our law system.
The law isn't so much concerned with Holy Orders and abuse of powers.
But when the law has been broken, especially the physical abuse of children, then this is most definately a legal issue. It is a criminal offence to obstruct justice. If the pope were the leader of a non religious corporate company which did this then he would be facing some serious criminal charges himself.
Quote from: Stevil on May 20, 2011, 10:01:07 AM
If the pope were the leader of a non religious corporate company which did this then he would be facing some serious criminal charges himself.
Yup, and the only reason we haven't seen prosecution like this occur is that if the US were to try to bring the Pope or other involved higher ups in for trial then the US would be seen as the bad guy at best and by certain countries might even consider it a cause for war even if we are currently allies. People feel very strongly about the old guy in the funny hat; even many protestant believers have tended to consider him holier than your average bear.
Quote from: Whitney on May 20, 2011, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 20, 2011, 10:01:07 AM
If the pope were the leader of a non religious corporate company which did this then he would be facing some serious criminal charges himself.
Yup, and the only reason we haven't seen prosecution like this occur is that if the US were to try to bring the Pope or other involved higher ups in for trial then the US would be seen as the bad guy at best and by certain countries might even consider it a cause for war even if we are currently allies. People feel very strongly about the old guy in the funny hat; even many protestant believers have tended to consider him holier than your average bear.
I'm not sure how many countries would heed the popes call to go to war these days. I suppose Belesconi might if offered absolution for his sins.
It can look dodgy when the US enthusiastically chases villains but refuses to accept international authority.
QuoteUS and ICC Relations
US opposition to the Court has raised the price of Statute ratification to states that accept assistance from the United States. US legislation confronts ICC member states with the difficult decision of whether to accede to US demands to accept bilateral agreements that immunize US citizens from ICC jurisdiction or to stand on principle and pay an economic price. Paradoxically, however, U.S. opposition may also have helped build the Court's credibility. The early opposition by the US undermined the image of the ICC as an extension of Neocolonial influence or a tool of Western domination. Meanwhile, the U.S. antipathy appears to be softening.
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=7485.msg114211;topicseen#msg114211
The practice of outgoing presidents endowing immunity on the worthy strikes me as odd, and then there's that Kissinger chap.
Quote from: PapistItalian16 on May 19, 2011, 11:55:27 PM
Quote from: Ihateyoumike on May 19, 2011, 11:19:16 PM
That's not enough. Castration and/or lots of jail time should be added to that. And loads of public humiliation. Oh, and excommunication from the church.
But, once a priest, always a priest. Right?
I guess your god will give them a pass no matter how many childrens' lives they ruin, but I'm the unforgivable one for flat out admitting that I deny your church's holy spirit.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Well hello, Mr. Angry...
"Not 100 people in the United States hate the Roman Catholic Church, but millions hate what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is." -- Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
My point in posting this is to state that the Catholic Church is not all made up of child molestors.
From: http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex6.htm)
QuoteUnfortunately, precise data on abuse is not available. Data is largely based on experts' opinions. But perhaps the following might be helpful:
In another essay, we describe various estimates of the percentage of Roman Catholic priests who engage in sexual activities with persons under the age of 18. They range from 0.12% to 6%. In the absence of precise data, a value of 3% might be a reasonable guess.
If the 3% value is accurate, then it is important to remember that 97% of priests are not sexually abusive to children and adults.
In the same essay, investigators have estimated that between 90% and 98% of the abusers victimize post-pubertal adolescents, while the rest assault pre-pubertal children. A value of 95% might be a reasonable guess.
The percentage of males in the general population who sexually abuse young children is unknown. Some estimates are in the range of 1%
If those data are accurate then: About 0.15% of priests sexually abuse young children.
This is perhaps 1/8 the rate of men generally.
Priests have a much lower rate of abusive pedophilia than does the general population of men.
This same article also has some interesting points about this whole topic.
I don't care much if it was one priest or all of them. As many others have pointed out, it is an egregious misuse of power. And it could be argued that holding the power over someone's "eternal life" in your hands gives you more power than most. And whether it's abuse in church, public schools, youth rehabilitation, hospitals, or anywhere else... it needs to not go unpunished and sure as hell needs to not be covered up.
This is where my beef with the catholic church and it's dead pope comes in. They covered it up.
And my grandfather is a catholic priest, and though misguided imho, one of the most honorable men I've ever met. I think he represents the good side of the catholic church. I don't believe he'd ever be involved in abuse, or the cover up of abuse. But you can bet your sweet ass that if he ever was involved in either of those I would see him as just as vile as I see the ones who have been involved... such as the dead pope.
-Mr. Angry
I think it is appropriate to feel angry about anything or anyone that allows child molestation to occur.
Two teachers were just arrested here in DFW under charges of having sex with teenage students...one turned himself in and the other resigned before proper evidence for charges could be collected. If the church just turned in their bad guys like the schools do theirs then no one would fault the church itself (aside from the religious implications of a messenger of god doing something ungodly).
I never liked the idea of sainthood when I was a Christian. The church says that only god can judge, yet naming someone a saint is basically humans deciding that a person was holy enough to skip purgatory and go straight to heaven.