[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well, after doing some digging it would appear that the rate of abuse is pretty much the same between the Catholic sect and the other mainstream Christian sects.
However, there appears to be a HUGE difference in how the abuse is handled.
First of, the press consistently confuses pedophelia with hebophilia. In the Catholic sexual abuse cases 51% were boys between 16-17 and the press hasn't helped by refusing to make the distinction. Not that it's any less reprehensible.
Now, on to the difference in how these incidents are handled. In the Protestant Churches, ministers are generally removed and prosecuted. Of course, there have been exceptions. The Catholic Church has had a LONG history of covering it up. THAT'S why it makes more news than when a Protestant minister does it.
Got a short list of reported abuses by denomination since the 1980's until 2003:
ALL Protestant denominations - 838 Ministers

147 Baptist Ministers

251 "Bible" Church Ministers (fundamentalist/evangelical)

140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers

38 Lutheran Ministers

46 Methodist Ministers

19 Presbyterian Ministers

197 various Church Ministers
The 2 I highlighted, I did so because these numbers don't really shock me tbh.
Fundamentalism and child abuse seem to almost go hand in hand
The "various" category includes, the JW's, Mormons and other non-mainstream sects.
Confirmed Catholic abuse cases in the US ALONE from the 50'to 2002 were 6700 substantiated accusations against 4400 priests. 70% of those were ordained before 1970. There were another 3300 claims that went uninvestigated because the accused had passed away in the meantime.
Admittedly, the vast majority of the complaints are from 20-30 years ago, which roughly corresponds to the worst time for the RCC in the US. To be fair to the Catholic Church, although they still drag their feet on prosecuting offenders, they have put in place since the 80's, measures to try and reduce the number of abusers entering the priesthood.
And since then, there has been a steady decline back to rates that are in line with the national average for child sexual abuse.
So, to repeat, Catholic cases make the news because they've been covered up for so long. And that they DID have at one time a disproportionate number of child sexual abuse cases.

[KrytenKoro]

DerbyX wrote:

Psudo wrote:

If any other mainstream Christian sect does it, it's portrayed as a bad individual. With Catholics, it's portrayed as a corrupt system.

On when the story uncovers a cover-up story that travels right up that system to the pope himself then yes.

That is why they are under attack. Instead of dealing with the problem individual they church has almost always covered-up the story as best they could and either ignored the facts and simply shipped the offender to another church where they could offend again. Only when the story becomes completely uncovered and the full truth comes out do people see that the case isn't one of a priest abusing a boy but of the considerable effort made to hide that fact.

This is me speaking as a Protestant, but it's not totally correct to view it as a coverup.

For example, look at confession - if the priest can solve the sinner's problem in private, that's ideal. Catholicism never emphasized the "punishment through public shunning" aspect used in Judaism and Protestantism.

However, that doesn't mean that's the right thing to do - just an explanation that they were probably trying to fix things in their own way.

Also, as was said earlier, just because they didn't report it to the authorities doesn't mean they weren't trying to rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the legal system is, but is it even legally admissible to have foreign dignitaries accusing/turning in US citizens for crimes? Or for that to be used as evidence?

[Psudo]

I appreciate the research, PublicAnimalNo9. Where did you find that information?

[DerbyX]

KrytenKoro wrote:

This is me speaking as a Protestant, but it's not totally correct to view it as a coverup.

For example, look at confession - if the priest can solve the sinner's problem in private, that's ideal. Catholicism never emphasized the "punishment through public shunning" aspect used in Judaism and Protestantism.

However, that doesn't mean that's the right thing to do - just an explanation that they were probably trying to fix things in their own way.

Also, as was said earlier, just because they didn't report it to the authorities doesn't mean they weren't trying to rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the legal system is, but is it even legally admissible to have foreign dignitaries accusing/turning in US citizens for crimes? Or for that to be used as evidence?

Excuse me.

These are text book examples of cover ups. Not only were they breaking the law by not going to police in the first place but they did not seek any real form of punishment. In addition they repeated a pattern of simply moving the offenders from diocese to diocese where they would offend again. Then entire incident involving the Boston archdiocese is defined EXACTLY as a cover up and if it had been handled properly hundreds of boys would not have been abused.

You can try and claim confessionals or avoiding public shunning but those are simply buzz words (like matters of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor) but in the end it's quite clear they were more concerned about the affects it would have on the church rather then to justice and the protection of the young parishioners in their charge.

That is called covering it up.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX wrote:

KrytenKoro wrote:

This is me speaking as a Protestant, but it's not totally correct to view it as a coverup.

For example, look at confession - if the priest can solve the sinner's problem in private, that's ideal. Catholicism never emphasized the "punishment through public shunning" aspect used in Judaism and Protestantism.

However, that doesn't mean that's the right thing to do - just an explanation that they were probably trying to fix things in their own way.

Also, as was said earlier, just because they didn't report it to the authorities doesn't mean they weren't trying to rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the legal system is, but is it even legally admissible to have foreign dignitaries accusing/turning in US citizens for crimes? Or for that to be used as evidence?

Excuse me.

These are text book examples of cover ups. Not only were they breaking the law by not going to police in the first place but they did not seek any real form of punishment. In addition they repeated a pattern of simply moving the offenders from diocese to diocese where they would offend again. Then entire incident involving the Boston archdiocese is defined EXACTLY as a cover up and if it had been handled properly hundreds of boys would not have been abused.

You can try and claim confessionals or avoiding public shunning but those are simply buzz words (like matters of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor) but in the end it's quite clear they were more concerned about the affects it would have on the church rather then to justice and the protection of the young parishioners in their charge.

That is called covering it up.

I agree.

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" and this was in acknowledgement that while the faithful must adhere to the law of God, they must also adhere to the law of man. Meaning that while the church - any church - has the right to absolve someone of their sins, they also have an obligation to report violations of the law to the proper authorities.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Psudo wrote:

I appreciate the research, PublicAnimalNo9. Where did you find that information?

The info for Protestants came from here http://www.reformation.com/ and the info on the Catholic cases came from wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

[KrytenKoro]

BartSimpson wrote:

DerbyX wrote:

KrytenKoro wrote:

This is me speaking as a Protestant, but it's not totally correct to view it as a coverup.

For example, look at confession - if the priest can solve the sinner's problem in private, that's ideal. Catholicism never emphasized the "punishment through public shunning" aspect used in Judaism and Protestantism.

However, that doesn't mean that's the right thing to do - just an explanation that they were probably trying to fix things in their own way.

Also, as was said earlier, just because they didn't report it to the authorities doesn't mean they weren't trying to rectify the situation. I'm not sure what the legal system is, but is it even legally admissible to have foreign dignitaries accusing/turning in US citizens for crimes? Or for that to be used as evidence?

Excuse me.

These are text book examples of cover ups. Not only were they breaking the law by not going to police in the first place but they did not seek any real form of punishment. In addition they repeated a pattern of simply moving the offenders from diocese to diocese where they would offend again. Then entire incident involving the Boston archdiocese is defined EXACTLY as a cover up and if it had been handled properly hundreds of boys would not have been abused.

You can try and claim confessionals or avoiding public shunning but those are simply buzz words (like matters of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor) but in the end it's quite clear they were more concerned about the affects it would have on the church rather then to justice and the protection of the young parishioners in their charge.

That is called covering it up.

I agree.

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" and this was in acknowledgement that while the faithful must adhere to the law of God, they must also adhere to the law of man. Meaning that while the church - any church - has the right to absolve someone of their sins, they also have an obligation to report violations of the law to the proper authorities.

I agree, it was not the proper way to handle it, and in practice, it was an obscene dereliction of duty. I just think that it's possible that that's not how they meant it. I'm not exactly well-versed on Catholic bureaucracy, but it seems that they were trying to address the problem, they just didn't work hard enough.

The wikipedia section you link to seems to say that the "alleged cover-ups" consisted of taking the priests who had been accused and sending them to get psychiatric evaluations in order to decide whether they were fit to preach again. It's reading like the problem is less like they were taking convicted priests and hiding their charges, and more like they tried to thrust the problem onto doctors. Again, this is not at all acceptable, but it seems more like extreme bureaucratic inefficiency and less like a malicious cover-up.

And I fully agree that allowing this to happen at all is directly in contradiction to what the Bible tells them to do - I just think that they're probably less "out to systematically molest children" and more "grossly inefficient at addressing the problem".

I'm still confused about them "breaking the law", though. If this is the Vatican top-brass we're talking about here, how do American laws apply to them? Sure, the local bishops were certainly obligated to report the issue to the police, but what was the Vatican supposed to do outside of addressing the problem within their own legal framework?

[CKASlacker]

JJ wrote:

While your other summaries are good, the Globe and Mail is not by any stretch a conservative national newspaper. Its editorial page is consistently liberal (though granted, not as left as the Toronto Star). The National Post, which I often cite, was founded with the explicit intent to be a conservative national alternative to the Globe. The Post's publisher, CanWest media, owns a lot of smaller local papers too, which are generally considered conservative-by-association.

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

[Mustang1]

CKASlacker wrote:

JJ wrote:

While your other summaries are good, the Globe and Mail is not by any stretch a conservative national newspaper. Its editorial page is consistently liberal (though granted, not as left as the Toronto Star). The National Post, which I often cite, was founded with the explicit intent to be a conservative national alternative to the Globe. The Post's publisher, CanWest media, owns a lot of smaller local papers too, which are generally considered conservative-by-association.

Fair enough - I stand corrected.

Actually, the Globe and Mail is a centrist paper. Depending upon the issue, editorials can be either left or right.

[Psudo]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

The info for Protestants came from here http://www.reformation.com/ and the info on the Catholic cases came from wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Reformation.com wrote:

We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church.

Thank you, PublicAnimal.

BartSimpson wrote:

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" and this was in acknowledgement that while the faithful must adhere to the law of God, they must also adhere to the law of man.

I've heard a different interpretation of that scripture. The coins of the Roman Empire depicted the face of Caesar (perhaps qualifying as a 'graven image' or idol by ancient standards) and the inscription "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus" suggesting that Caesar was a god to be worshiped. Wikipedia shows this.

Thus, Jesus was not saying that the secular law MUST be followed in all situations, but rather that there is no need to resist secular law on principle; unless secular law defies God's law, there is no particular need to resist. Render unto Caesar only that which is Caesar's, but thou shalt have no other gods before me. This is a more rational approach to law as well. Certainly, no one would expect good, adherent Christians to submit to the laws of Nazi Germany requiring the abuse and destruction of Jews and others. The better command is to submit to secular law when that law is right and does not conflict with God's law (eg, morality).

That doesn't make a great difference in this particular issue, though. A cover-up is clearly not right whether it can be prosecuted within any particular jurisdiction or not.

Mustang1 wrote:

Actually, the Globe and Mail is a centrist paper. Depending upon the issue, editorials can be either left or right.

On which issues does the Globe and Mail tend to lean left and which right?

[Mustang1]

Psudo wrote:

Globe and Mail tend to lean left and which right?

Well...historically, it was supportive (albeit not so much in the end) of the Harris Common Sense Revolution whereas other times it has come down on the side of more leftist (in the Canadian vein) issues like SSM, tempered Israeli support and a condemnation of Tory's failed campaign wedge issue of religious schools. Its op-ed features run the spectrum from Preston Manning to Bob Rae to Jack Granatstein to Naomi Klein.

[Pseudonym]

Psudo wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's" and this was in acknowledgement that while the faithful must adhere to the law of God, they must also adhere to the law of man.

I've heard a different interpretation of that scripture. The coins of the Roman Empire depicted the face of Caesar (perhaps qualifying as a 'graven image' or idol by ancient standards) and the inscription "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus" suggesting that Caesar was a god to be worshiped. Wikipedia shows this.

Thus, Jesus was not saying that the secular law MUST be followed in all situations, but rather that there is no need to resist secular law on principle; unless secular law defies God's law, there is no particular need to resist. Render unto Caesar only that which is Caesar's, but thou shalt have no other gods before me. This is a more rational approach to law as well. Certainly, no one would expect good, adherent Christians to submit to the laws of Nazi Germany requiring the abuse and destruction of Jews and others. The better command is to submit to secular law when that law is right and does not conflict with God's law (eg, morality).

I particularly like Ravi Zacharias' (great speaker, if you haven't listened to him) interpretation with regards to the unasked question: "If the coin bearing Caesar's image belongs to Caesar, what then belongs to God?" Seen in light of man bearing God's image, it can be a pretty powerful statement of divine authority and presence.

[Dayseed]

Pseudonym wrote:

I particularly like Ravi Zacharias' (great speaker, if you haven't listened to him) interpretation with regards to the unasked question: "If the coin bearing Caesar's image belongs to Caesar, what then belongs to God?" Seen in light of man bearing God's image, it can be a pretty powerful statement of divine authority and presence.

It's not a powerful statement at all. What belongs to Jupiter? What belongs to Odin that doesn't belong to Shiva?

Also, man being created in God's image is a meaningless statement. Does God have lungs? Does God have an epiglottis that keeps food from tumbling into His divine lungs? Does God shave each day? Does God style His hair? What colour are God's eyes?

If He doesn't, just how far do we stray from His image?

Isn't the more realistic explanation we invented a God in our own image of what a God should be?

[Pseudonym]

My apologies, I probably should have put that in a PM to Psudo, since we aren't debating theology here, and it was something I was sharing for those with similar viewpoints to my own on religion. Running into a debate on the nature and existence of God isn't suitable for a thread on how the Catholic church deals with pedophilic priests.