That unfortunate priest in Co Clare

Michael G

One can only pity the man for the squalid way he was "outed" in the gutter press. By all accounts he is a good pastor, even if what he has been doing is fundamentally contradictory not only to his vows but to the most fundamental morality. Let's hope that he can work out for himself a way to salvage his priesthood.

But the reaction in the news media has been fascinating. It is clearly now not acceptable to disapprove of any kind of homosexual activity by anyone, no matter how squalid or unrelated to love. I heard Matt Cooper yesterday trying to turn the story into a debate on celibacy. I didn't hear the whole thing, because I can't listen to fools talking for very long without wanting to go and stamp on their fat heads. But Cooper evidently thinks that celibacy and chastity are the same thing, and that both are equally unreasonable things to ask of anyone. It takes a remarkable level of crassness to suggest that a loving relationship with a woman (or, at a stretch and if you ignore all the other related issues, with another man) falls into the same category as cruising on websites for threesomes with strangers.

anto1208

What amazes me when these things come out (pardon the pun) is the complete lack of Christian values from the church. this poor priest who from all accounts is a nice person will prob be kicked out of the church while they move and protect the peado's

It is clearly wrong to disapprove of homosexual activity in a right minded society.

How I dream of a church about love and inclusion rather than the ones based around hate and exclusion.

Michael G

anto1208 wrote:

What amazes me when these things come out (pardon the pun) is the complete lack of Christian values from the church. this poor priest who from all accounts is a nice person will prob be kicked out of the church while they move and protect the peado's

It is clearly wrong to disapprove of homosexual activity in a right minded society.

I think you will find that his bishop has been publicly sympathetic and supportive. The remark about protecting the paedos is unfair. I think that sort of thing, which was utterly wrong, is in the past. In those days, this man's activities would have been covered up as well if he hadn't been exposed (yes it is hard to avoid puns) in the papers.

It is perfectly possible to disapprove of homosexual activity; for a Christian not to do so requires a fair amount of wishful thinking and self-deception. Disapproving of homosexual activity is of course a very different thing from disapproving of homosexuals in society as a whole or discriminating against them, but I can't see how promiscuous homosexual activity by a priest can be tolerated.

bonkey

Michael G wrote:

I can't see how promiscuous homosexual activity by a priest can be tolerated.

The word homosexual should be utterly superfluous to that sentence.

When you first posted this thread, I had to go google to find out what it was you're talking about (living abroad as I do, but my family being from Clare). My first reaction, to be honest, was "well, at least he's unlikely to have had kids, unlike Casey".

It is, unfortunately, not a question of how good a priest he was outside of this, just like its not a question of how good a member of society a criminal is aside from their criminal activity.

He is expected to uphold a standard. He has, apparently, failed. Other merits don't mitigate this. Thats not to say I don't have sympathy for the guy. I think (personally) that he's being hard done by, but more in relation to the rules he's required to keep, than anything else.

But like anyone else...you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Michael G

bonkey wrote:

The word homosexual should be utterly superfluous to that sentence.

To some extent you are taking that sentence out of context, but in fact you are absolutely right. Thank you for clarifying it.

anto1208

I think he would be better off leaving the church anyway its rotten from top to bottom .

I was heartened to see the his community have come out in total support of him , saying they dont care if he is straight or gay that he is a wonderfull man and they want him to stay . I was so surprised because normally in small parishes like this you get a backwards way of thinking , i was so happy to see the support from his parish real christian Values of love understanding and acceptance rather than banging on about some stupid "laws"

Excelsior

Its such a pity that the very Christ who gave rise to Christian values had such a high view of the Jewish law that is so easily dismissed... otherwise you might even have a cogent argument.

robindch

Excelsior - out of interest, which are the "christian values" that you're referring to here?

kelly1

anto1208 wrote:

I think he would be better off leaving the church anyway its rotten from top to bottom.

Anto, I'm sorry you feel this way about the Church but it's your loss! What you don't realize is that the Church always has and always will be persecuted, as Jesus warned, for preaching the TRUTH. In this crazy world of ours, the thing most rejected is God's truth because it's too "inconvenient". People would rather live in darkness and ignorance and attack a Church that they can't understand. It's so terribly sad that people reject the Church founded by Jesus Christ and often from ignorance of the beauty of the Church and the lies of others. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head. When you attack the Church, you attack Jesus!

There was a time in my life, that I rejected the Church but now thanks to the Grace of God, I embrace it whole-heartedly and see it as VITAL for my salvation. God's grace comes to us primarily through the sacraments and sacraments (all 7) come to us through the Church from Christ.

God bless,
Noel.

Michael G

anto1208 wrote:

I think he would be better off leaving the church anyway its rotten from top to bottom. I was heartened to see the his community have come out in total support of him, saying they dont care if he is straight or gay that he is a wonderfull man and they want him to stay. I was so happy to see the support from his parish real christian Values of love understanding and acceptance rather than banging on about some stupid "laws"

To go back to the source, here is the Gospel of St John (7:53-8:11):

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

If you want to talk about "real Christian values of love", then it is as well to look at what the Boss said. He said he wasn't going to judge her or punish her, but he told her not to do it again. Or to translate it into the topic we are talking about: You aren't condemned, you are forgiven (because I am going to make up what you owe), you still have a future, but stop going on gay websites looking for threesomes.

PDN

Any job or profession has a code of conduct that you are expected to follow if you want to keep your job. In many cases, because of the nature of the job, these include conditions that don't apply in other jobs.

For example, if you are a traffic policeman responsible for encouraging the public to drive safely then you know that getting caught speeding or drink driving will dramatically affect your career, possibly even losing you your job. If you are a plumber then the exposure of such behaviour may be embarrassing, but not a reason for dismissal.

If you are an army officer, responsible for leading troops into battle, then a tendency to run away at the first sound of gunfire (quite sensible for most of us) is probably going to end your career prospects.

If you work for an organisation that seeks to promote a particular morality among its members (the Catholic Church) then you understand that posting photographs of yourself on the internet wearing nothing but underpants and a crucifix for the purpose of soliciting sexual encounters is almost certainly going to cost you your job. (This would apply whether you are seeking homosexual or heterosexual encounters).

The title of this thread refers to him as 'unfortunate'. That word implies that he was unlucky. Luck never came into it.

robindch

I agree with PDN -- luck had nothing to do with this at all. This guy should have known better than to have been sending around solicitous photos of himself in his jocks or whatever when he's a member of an organization that regularly condemns homosexuality together with all the other kinds of sex that it does not explicitly require its members to partake in.

The questions then arise (a) what on earth was he thinking when he joined up, (b) are there many more priests doing this and (c) is it reasonable for the organization he works to denounce his choice of partner, or his ability to have one, in the first place?

Michael G

robindch wrote:

The questions then arise (a) what on earth was he thinking when he joined up, (b) are there many more priests doing this and (c) is it reasonable for the organization he works to denounce his choice of partner, or his ability to have one, in the first place?

(a) Presumably when he decided to become a priest he didn't intend to be a promiscuous homosexual. People change, and acquire patterns of behaviour. In the old days, some men with deviant sexual tastes thought that the sacrament of Holy Orders would help them not to indulge them; though this man in his grey shirt and pullover looks like one of those Vatican II types who don't set too much store by the sacraments.

(b) The proportion of kiddy-fiddlers in the priesthood is smaller than the proportion among lay people, so there may be a few but probably not many.

(c) Yes, it is an organisation in which membership is voluntary, whether as a priest or as a lay person, and it can set its own rules — whether you think, like Michael McDowell, that they are no more deserving of deference than the rules of a golf club or, like me, you think that they have a valid basis in Scripture and in theology.

By the way I started this thread and gave it its title, and I accept PDN's point. I used the word "unfortunate" a bit carelessly — what I had in mind was the fact that he was unlucky to be disgraced in one of the bum-wipe papers. Certainly he is responsible for his own actions.

lostexpectation

why didn't the bishop sack him? (for breaking several rules of employment)

I thought that very strange he didn't even suspend him but gave him leave?

r3nu4l

My own view is that priests should be allowed to have relationships. The Church does not agree and forbids all their ministers from doing so. When joining the priesthood all seminarians know this and when ordained, take a vow to remain celibate...regardless of sexuality. They know what they are getting into!

He broke his vow to the Church (whether I agree with the vow or not is irrelevant) therefore he should be placed on immediate sabbattical so that he can consider his position carefully. If he can commit to returning as a celibate priest he should be given that chance. If not, then he should perhaps become a deacon of the church or find a new career.

My own deacon is married with a wife and child and manages to balance his duties to the church, his job and his family fairly well so perhaps if you are unwilling to commit to a life of celibacy then becoming a deacon is the way to go!

Of course, I don't think the Church are ready to approve of non-celibate homosexual deacons at this stage...

anto1208

kelly1 wrote:

Anto, I'm sorry you feel this way about the Church but it's your loss! What you don't realize is that the Church always has and always will be persecuted, as Jesus warned, for preaching the TRUTH. In this crazy world of ours, the thing most rejected is God's truth because it's too "inconvenient". People would rather live in darkness and ignorance and attack a Church that they can't understand. It's so terribly sad that people reject the Church founded by Jesus Christ and often from ignorance of the beauty of the Church and the lies of others. The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ is the Head. When you attack the Church, you attack Jesus!

There was a time in my life, that I rejected the Church but now thanks to the Grace of God, I embrace it whole-heartedly and see it as VITAL for my salvation. God's grace comes to us primarily through the sacraments and sacraments (all 7) come to us through the Church from Christ.

God bless,
Noel.

Noel your missing the point i reject the church because it doesnt stand for what christ intended , where did christ say its ok to use slave labour (magdaline laundries ), its ok to rape kids then move priests to protect the church and dont say that was the past because its the very real present , that everyone has to give money to the church even though the wealth amassed by the church makes it one of the richest states in the world , that it ok to murder people that dont believe in your teachings .

When i attack the church i don't attack jesus i attack the rotten element in the church that has ruined what was a great idea to begin with . Peopel are moving away from it because of conveince or ignorance they are moving away because there eyes have been openned to the true evil that infests the church from the lowest priests to the very top cardinals that lie to protect the church rather than its followers .

anto1208

Michael G wrote:

To go back to the source, here is the Gospel of St John (7:53-8:11):

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."

If you want to talk about "real Christian values of love", then it is as well to look at what the Boss said. He said he wasn't going to judge her or punish her, but he told her not to do it again. Or to translate it into the topic we are talking about: You aren't condemned, you are forgiven (because I am going to make up what you owe), you still have a future, but stop going on gay websites looking for threesomes.

yea so wouldnt saying what you just said be the more christian thing rather than kicking him out of the church because he got tricked by a sneaky reporter into sending pics of himself in his jocks , i dont think it will happen but only due to the massive swell in support from his community . If the reaction was different do you think he'd still be a priest ??

kelly1

lostexpectation wrote:

why didn't the bishop sack him? (for breaking several rules of employment)

I thought that very strange he didn't even suspend him but gave him leave?

Hello, there's no rule of employment that says a priest must never sin. We can all be forgiven by God. It would of course be different matter if he refused to repent and give up grave sin.

God bless,
Noel.

PDN

He'll probably be sent as a missionary to somewhere overseas.

kelly1

anto1208 wrote:

Noel your missing the point i reject the church because it doesnt stand for what christ intended ,

I don't think I am missing the point. The Church upholds Christ's teachings. Just because a percentage of priests/bishops are corrupt doesn't make the whole Church bad. Scandal does terrible damage to the Church and the individuals concerned will have to make an account of themselves on judgement day. Jesus also said that we must respect the authority of the Church:

John 10:16
He that heareth you [the Apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

anto1208 wrote:

where did christ say its ok to use slave labour (magdaline laundries ), its ok to rape kids then move priests to protect the church and dont say that was the past because its the very real present

The Church never did condone this but was tolerated at the local parish level.

anto1208 wrote:

, that everyone has to give money to the church even though the wealth amassed by the church makes it one of the richest states in the world

The Church is not cash rich but is rich in assets. How can you run a church without property? Do you condemn the state for holding valuable pieces of art in the National Museum?

anto1208 wrote:

, that it ok to murder people that dont believe in your teachings.

The crusades were a response to an invasion by Muslim armies.

anto1208 wrote:

When i attack the church i don't attack jesus

See bible verse above.

anto1208 wrote:

I attack the rotten element in the church

That's OK, the truth must come out![/QUOTE]

anto1208 wrote:

Peopel are moving away from it because of conveince or ignorance they are moving away because there eyes have been openned to the true evil that infests the church from the lowest priests to the very top cardinals that lie to protect the church rather than its followers .

Terrible damage had been done by the scandals but people really need to realize what the Church is! It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ who promised that the Church would never be destroyed. Before the reformation there was only 1 Christian Church. The devils is making great strides in damaging the Church but it will never be destroyed and we have God's word for that!

I think it's fair to say that many people reject the Church because its teachings are hard to live by and require self-sacrifice. People don't like to change themselves because it takes honesty and courage. Priests these days are afraid to preach morality from the pulpit in case they offend people. They've lost courage to preach the difficult truth.

I believe many are using the Church scandals as an excuse to opt out.

As Jack Nicolson said, "You can't handle the truth!".

God bless,
Noel.

lostexpectation

kelly1 wrote:

Hello, there's no rule of employment that says a priest must never sin. We can all be forgiven by God. It would of course be different matter if he refused to repent and give up grave sin.

God bless,
Noel.

so there are no hard and fast rules of employment in the church? that explains alot...

god pukes,
LE

kelly1

lostexpectation wrote:

so there are no hard and fast rules of employment in the church? that explains alot...

god pukes,
LE

What school of logic did you go to ???

Bananas are yellow and a banana is a fruit. Therefore all fruits are yellow. Q.E.D.

Run_to_da_hills

kelly1 wrote:

What school of logic did you go to ???

Bananas are yellow and a banana is a fruit. Therefore all fruits are yellow. Q.E.D.

Our lord talks about telling a tree by its fruits, the fruits of the catholic church are all these abominable paedophile law suits, that’s because the are forbidden to marry. The Bible encourages marriage among the clergy. (1Timothy 4:3)

Michael G

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Our lord talks about telling a tree by its fruits, the fruits of the catholic church are all these abominable paedophile law suits, that’s because the are forbidden to marry. The Bible encourages marriage among the clergy. (1Timothy 4:3)

Yes and no. Facts:

• The typical child abuser is not a single man with no (adult) sexual experiences and/or no current sexual relationship.
• Married men, with children, do it often.
• Married Protestant clergy (admittely Anglicans usually) have been caught at it too.
• The proportion of Catholic priests convicted of child abuse is a lot less than in in the population as a whole.

So now please restate your opinion.

robindch

MichaelG wrote:

The proportion of Catholic priests convicted of child abuse is a lot less than in in the population as a whole.

Well, with respect, the Irish Catholic which isn't known for publishing news unfavourable to catholics, ran a headline in 2005 which said roughly that "Only 4% of Convicted Pedophiles are Priests" and went on to quote some statistics from the DoJ to that effect. Given that the census says that there are around 4,000 religious workers (and most of them catholic) in the country and so make up around 0.1% of the population, we can see that priests are roughly forty times more likely to be convicted of a sexual offence than the population at large. I wish I'd cut out that article and kept it because it was a quite startling admission, even if it was an inadvertent one.

If the Irish Catholic is right and it seemed to have the figures to hand, then your claim that catholic priests are less likely to be convicted of child abuse is way off mark.

Tim Robbins

Run_to_da_hills wrote:

Our lord talks about telling a tree by its fruits, the fruits of the catholic church are all these abominable paedophile law suits, that’s because the are forbidden to marry. The Bible encourages marriage among the clergy. (1Timothy 4:3)

As far as I remember none of the Apostles or Jesus married, so the Roman Catholic line is that they are living the Bible correctly in keeping with that.
But I think another reason is that they didn't want any of Priests' wives inheriting land should the husband die.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

As far as I remember none of the Apostles or Jesus married, so the Roman Catholic line is that they are living the Bible correctly in keeping with that.
But I think another reason is that they didn't want any of Priests' wives inheriting land should the husband die.

Actually the Bible is very clear that some of the apostles were married: "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:3-6).

Cephas, by the way, is Peter, supposedly the first (married) Pope.

Also: When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. (Matthew 8:14)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

Actually the Bible is very clear that some of the apostles were married: "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:3-6).

Cephas, by the way, is Peter, supposedly the first (married) Pope.

Also: When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. (Matthew 8:14)

I bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for pointing out my error.
Do the wives have any names by any chance?
PS Can you recommend me a good book on the origins of Catholism and Christianity. I am not looking for help your faith book, just something that looks at things historically etc.
Also what do you think of the new book by the Pope?
I read that he is quoting some Protestant source which were banned by Catholics in times past? I am going to get a copy when it comes out on paper back.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I bow to your superior knowledge and thank you for pointing out my error.
Do the wives have any names by any chance?
PS Can you recommend me a good book on the origins of Catholism and Christianity. I am not looking for help your faith book, just something that looks at things historically etc.
Also what do you think of the new book by the Pope?
I read that he is quoting some Protestant source which were banned by Catholics in times past? I am going to get a copy when it comes out on paper back.

I'm sure they had names, but they're not recorded in Scripture.

A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson is an excellent introduction to the subject. Johnson is a Catholic, but his treatment of the whole origins of the Church is pretty non-partisan. You can get a used copy for under a quid from Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0689705913/sr=8-13/qid=1182402163/ref=olp_product_details/026-1973233-8593255?ie=UTF8&qid=1182402163&sr=8-13&seller=

Ratzinger is actually an incredibly well-read guy. I haven't read his book yet. I'm waiting to get it on ebay myself!

Spyral

When i attack the church i don't attack jesus i attack the rotten element in the church that has ruined what was a great idea to begin with . Peopel are moving away from it because of conveince or ignorance they are moving away because there eyes have been openned to the true evil that infests the church from the lowest priests to the very top cardinals that lie to protect the church rather than its followers .

thats just the easy excuse not to have to follow.

also the estimate according to us statisticans is that around 5% of teachers are pedophiles. The clergy is around this marks (ON TIME & ON BUDGET ) so I dont know why everyone thinks that "all" priests are pedophiles while it is blatantly obvious that they are not.

Like I said people just want an excuse to turn away.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I'm sure they had names, but they're not recorded in Scripture.

A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson is an excellent introduction to the subject. Johnson is a Catholic, but his treatment of the whole origins of the Church is pretty non-partisan. You can get a used copy for under a quid from Amazon UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0689705913/sr=8-13/qid=1182402163/ref=olp_product_details/026-1973233-8593255?ie=UTF8&qid=1182402163&sr=8-13&seller=

Ratzinger is actually an incredibly well-read guy. I haven't read his book yet. I'm waiting to get it on ebay myself!

Many thanks. I will get that.
I read two chapters of Lee Strobel's Case for Faith last night.
An amazing example of sophistry, only a lawyer or jounralist could do such a good job of using sophistry to argue against evolution theory.
I wonder is he that scientifically ignorant or is just a very very clever lawyer.

hairyheretic

Spyral wrote:

thats just the easy excuse not to have to follow.

also the estimate according to us statisticans is that around 5% of teachers are pedophiles. The clergy is around this marks (ON TIME & ON BUDGET ) so I dont know why everyone thinks that "all" priests are pedophiles while it is blatantly obvious that they are not.

Like I said people just want an excuse to turn away.

If a teacher was caught, would the school and education board cover things up, move that teacher to another school, and try to bribe or threaten the childs parents into silence?

Or would they see the teacher handed over to the police for prosecution?

Do you remember which route the church took?

Thats the reason people have turned away, or at least a contributing factor.

I do not believe it was the issue of individual paedophile priests, but the actions that the church took to preserve its own image at the expense of those who were abused.

Run_to_da_hills

hairyheretic wrote:

Do you remember which route the church took?

Thats the reason people have turned away, or at least a contributing factor.

I do not believe it was the issue of individual paedophile priests, but the actions that the church took to preserve its own image at the expense of those who were abused.

Type in a search "sex crimes and Vatican” into Utube and you will get a 4 part BBC Panorama documentary about the appalling manner the Vatican tried to cover up these paedophile cases. Part one covers the Ferns case in debth.


Jesus hit the nail on the head with the following from Matthew 23.

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity
(Matthew 23 vs 27&28)

Michael G

robindch wrote:

Well, with respect, the Irish Catholic which isn't known for publishing news unfavourable to catholics, ran a headline in 2005 which said roughly that "Only 4% of Convicted Pedophiles are Priests" and went on to quote some statistics from the DoJ to that effect.

With even greater respect, please read that again. "Only 4% of convicted paedophiles are priests" is a very different thing from saying that 4% of priests are paedophiles.

You go on to say that "there are around 4,000 religious workers" (I take this to be your showy right-on look-at-me way of saying priests, nuns and brothers) so "we can see that priests are roughly forty times more likely to be convicted of a sexual offence than the population at large. I wish I'd cut out that article and kept it ..."

I wish you had cut it out and kept it too. If 4% of priests and religious were convicted paedophiles that would come to 160 but not even the Sunday World has found anything like that many.

robindch

MichaelG wrote:

With even greater respect, please read that again. "Only 4% of convicted paedophiles are priests" is a very different thing from saying that 4% of priests are paedophiles.

Yes, you're quite right. And that's why I quoted the article headline, so that there'd be no mistake about exactly what my point was -- I don't say that 4% of priests are pedophiles, but that according to the IC, 4% of convicted pedophiles are priests.

As they make up 0.1% of the population according to the census, we'd expect them to make up 0.1% of the prison population of convicted pedophiles too. But the IC says that they actually make up 4% of the convicted pedophiles. That means that priests are forty (4 divided by 0.1) times more likely to be convicted pedophiles than members of the general public.

Given that most churches talk a lot about how their rules are morally superior to everybody else's, we should actually expect a much higher standard of behaviour from the church and its workers than from the population at large. So, we should expect no priests at all to be convicted pedophiles, but that's not the case and we actually see the exact opposite.

And it's interesting to ask why this is the case.

BTW, "religious workers" isn't a "showy right-on look-at-me way of saying priests, nuns and brothers". I'm using something pretty close to the "religious occupations" category used by the Irish Census where the figure of 4,000 workers came from. The PDF file is available here.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

Yes, you're quite right. And that's why I quoted the article headline, so that there'd be no mistake about exactly what my point was -- I don't say that 4% of priests are pedophiles, but that according to the IC, 4% of convicted pedophiles are priests.

As they make up 0.1% of the population according to the census, we'd expect them to make up 0.1% of the prison population of convicted pedophiles too. But the IC says that they actually make up 4% of the convicted pedophiles. That means that priests are forty (4 divided by 0.1) times more likely to be convicted pedophiles than members of the general public.

Given that most churches talk a lot about how their rules are morally superior to everybody else's, we should actually expect a much higher standard of behaviour from the church and its workers than from the population at large. So, we should expect no priests at all to be convicted pedophiles, but that's not the case and we actually see the exact opposite.

And it's interesting to ask why this is the case.

BTW, "religious workers" isn't a "showy right-on look-at-me way of saying priests, nuns and brothers". I'm using something pretty close to the "religious occupations" category used by the Irish Census where the figure of 4,000 workers came from. The PDF file is available here.

What I find strange is how come we can't get a Catholic Priest onto boards.ie?
Has there ever been one? Is there any forum where Irish Priests debate issues with others?

Michael G

Tim Robbins wrote:

What I find strange is how come we can't get a Catholic Priest onto boards.ie? Has there ever been one? Is there any forum where Irish Priests debate issues with others?

A very good question. And one of the Vatican II girly-men emasculated I-feel-your-pain priestlings wouldn't be up to it. I (being pro-Church) would like to see a proper priest here.

However the girly-men are in control in most parishes and most of the bishops are from the same poisoned litter.

Michael G

robindch wrote:

That means that priests are forty (4 divided by 0.1) times more likely to be convicted pedophiles than members of the general public.

Yes. How many convictions have there been, and how many of those have been priests or other "religious workers"? (Civil servants in the CSO and elsewhere probably dream of an approving smile from Fintan O'Toole as much as the general population does, and try to use language that would please Him.)

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote:

What I find strange is how come we can't get a Catholic Priest onto boards.ie?
Has there ever been one? Is there any forum where Irish Priests debate issues with others?

We have had one once and was keeping incognito.

Who knows maybe we do.

robindch

MichaelG wrote:

How many convictions have there been, and how many of those have been priests or other "religious workers"?

As I said above, I didn't cut out and keep the article which, AFAIR, did give the figures - they may be available from the DOJ website, or some other government publication. Please let me know if you come across it.

MichaelG wrote:

Civil servants in the CSO and elsewhere probably dream of an approving smile from Fintan O'Toole as much as the general population does, and try to use language that would please Him.

What's wrong with referring to people who work in religious outlets as "religious workers"? I'm mystified by how much you dislike the term which seems reasonable enough to me, as it's got to include non-priests (pastors, vicars, nuns, monks and the odd imam) too.