Vatican: Sex abuse rife in other religions/<10 % of abuse by clergy is paedophilia

RGDATA!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican

What do people think of this statement? Certainly it might be reported with a different slant in publications other than the guardian, but that's where I read it, and I would agree with the editorial comment that it is "provocative"

I'm not looking to start an argument, more to see how committed Catholics feel about this statement? Is it appropriate? Is it accurate? Thanks

kmick

Its like what a child would say. Yeah I broke the window but Tom broke one as well. What people are mad about is the cover up and the move on to attack other children not the fact it happened in the first place.

prinz

While I don't completely agree with that article, it's premise that abuse exists within other religions is true. It didn't make the newspapers etc however.

robindch

RGDATA! wrote: »

Is it accurate?

Last week at the UN's HRC, the International Humanist and Ethical Union criticized the Vatican for covering up allegations of abuse by priests. Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent rep at the UN, exercised his right of reply, but did not address the allegations made.

Instead, and with a splendid sense of the irrelevant, he suggested that referring to the abusers as pedophiles was inaccurate, since the majority of priests abused teenage boys, and that ephebophilia was a more accurate term. He also mentioned that between 1.5 to 5% of catholic priests were involved in sex abuse cases, and bad and all as the catholic church might be, the jews and protestants were worse.

It's not clear who approved Tomasi's reply, but it's as inept a public reply as I've ever seen. The full text is here:

http://www.iheu.org/holy-see-responds-iheu-criticism

Tomasi wrote:

UNHRC
HOLY SEE, RIGHT OF REPLY – CHILD ABUSE
22 SEPTEMBER 09

Mr. President

Let me clarify the issue raised by the International Humanist and Ethical Union in its intervention

• In the upcoming report of the Holy See to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is finalized as we speak, a paragraph will be dedicated to the problem of child abuse by catholic clergy.
• While many speak of child abuse, i.e. pedophilia, it would be more correct to speak of ephebophilia, being a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the age of 11 and 17 years old.
• From available research we now know that in the last fifty years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases. The Christian Science Monitor reported on the results of a national survey by Christian Ministry Resources in 2002 and concluded: "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant". Sexual abuses within the Jewish communities approximate that found among the Protestant clergy.
• About 85% of the offenders of child sexual abuse are family members, babysitters, neighbors, family friends or relatives. About one in six child molesters are other children, while most of the offenders are male[3].
• According to a major 2004 study commissioned by the US Department of Education, nearly 10 percent of US Public school students have been targeted with unwanted sexual attention by school employees. The author of the study concluded that the scope of the school-sex problem appears to far exceed the clergy abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church and concluded in an interview with Education Week "the physical abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests".
• The Church is very conscious of the seriousness of the problem. The Code of Canon Law stipulates that priests involved in sexual abuse cases must be "punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from clerical state". The American Bishops Conference issued in 2002 "essential norms for diocesan/eparchial policies dealing with allegations of sexual abuse of minors by priests or deacons". The guidelines mention among others that "in case of sufficient evidence the bishop will withdraw the accused from exercising the ministry, impose or prohibit residence in a given place or territory...pending the outcome of the process". Other National Bishops Conferences have taken similar measures.

As the Catholic Church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.

Morlar

Re this reference from the original article ;

He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common

It would help to have those original statistics to know how relevant his statement was.

I think that he probably has a valid point. The media and popular culture have singled out one religion for all of this when it seems to be either as prevalent or even more prevalent in other religions.

Ignoring other religions vulnerabilities in these scandals makes no sense. It does not detract from the seriousness of the abuse but it may put things in perspective and begin to address situations where abuse is occuring by priest/rabbis etc or other non catholic churches in addition to catholic churches.

Stark

Reminds me of that bit in Father Ted. "Now if there's 1 million priests in the church and only 10% of them are paedophiles, that means there's only 100,000 paedophile priests".

Morlar

Stark wrote: »

Reminds me of that bit in Father Ted. "Now if there's 1 million priests in the church and only 10% of them are paedophiles, that means there's only 100,000 paedophile priests".

Just the one church then yep ?

RGDATA!

I think that he probably has a valid point. The media and popular culture have singled out one religion for all of this when it seems to be either as prevalent or even more prevalent in other religions.

I genuinely did not know that child abuse is as prevalent or more prevalent in other religions than in the Catholic church. Where do you get information about this? For one reason, I would have expected that it would be significantly less in churches that don't require celibate ministers, maybe this is not the case if what you say is true.

prinz

RGDATA! wrote: »

For one reason, I would have expected that it would be significantly less in churches that don't require celibate ministers, maybe this is not the case if what you say is true.

Perhaps then you missed the various cases of CofE ministers being caught for possessing child pornography/making child pornography/abusing children etc. I wouldn't blame you though, it was never plastered across headline news. :rolleyes:.

Morlar

RGDATA! wrote: »

I genuinely did not know that child abuse is as prevalent or more prevalent in other religions than in the Catholic church. Where do you get information about this?

I think the Christian Science Monitor may have more statistics on this - though I have not seen them yet.

The original post that started the thread contained a link to a Guardian article. The Guardian article contained a quote about what the Archbishop Silvano Tomasi (the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN) had said, which I quoted (the article) ;

"He also quoted statistics from the Christian Scientist Monitor newspaper to show that most US churches being hit by child sex abuse allegations were Protestant and that sexual abuse within Jewish communities was common."
_________

I referenced the article in my post, not necessarily taking it at face value.

It would help to have those original statistics (CSM) to know how relevant his statement was.

I think that he probably has a valid point.

I think the point which was being made is that the media, and popular culture have focused on a single religion, correctly highlighting cases of abuse, however to focus their attention only on one religion instead of all (in this case christian and jewish) gives a distorted impression of both catholicism (being full of molestors) and other religions (being molestor free).

It is the media distortion he was addressing (in my view).

I do not think he was saying the CC is problem free at the moment, only that steps were being taken to fix this, whereas due to the almost exclusive media focus on the Catholic Church has been to the detriment of stories of abuse in other religions acc the CSM data). Other religions where it is either as prevalent or even more widespread yet being all but ignored in the media and wider popular culture.

In that sense if the CSM data is correct I believe he has a valid point.

kmick

"While many speak of child abuse, i.e. pedophilia, it would be more correct to speak of ephebophilia, being a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the age of 11 and 17 years old."

Below 17 is a minor in Ireland no matter how you donk the stats or what you call it. The cover up was the problem not the original abuse.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps then you missed the various cases of CofE ministers being caught for possessing child pornography/making child pornography/abusing children etc. I wouldn't blame you though, it was never plastered across headline news. :rolleyes:.

They do make the headlines sometimes, I remember this one when it was happening

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6594439.stm

As kmick says the issue that I think makes the headlines is cover up, be it RCC or CoE

When one priest abuses a child it is an individual acting terribly, but when it is covered up by the organisation then it becomes a conspiracy, which makes people more outraged, because people should feel that once it is known that this person is doing these things it should be stopped straight away.

super_furry

Oh, well that's fine then.

postcynical

I didn't read the articles or hear the reports but if the RCC is swiping out at other religions or trying to relativise or equivocate these horrors, it is simply deepening the wounds and increasing the sin.

Even if it turns out that 20% of the entire population are predisposed to paedophilia and only 5% of priests engage in it, that would mean nothing to me or to any other Catholic who feels shame and guilt at what was carried out in our name. Nobody who consecrates their life to Christ can behave like this. No organization that claims to represent Christ on Earth can cover up such evil. If spokespeople for the Church are even hinting at rallying the faithful against Christ, against the innocent, against all the trust and hope that makes up the real church, then I for one Catholic will help the atheists bash that organisation down (and help rebuild it again much stronger;))

Naturally I'm sceptical of the story!

RGDATA!

If anyone has a link to that Christian Scientist Monitor article please post it, I searched their site but couldn't find it. I wonder if they did a comparison or had any statistics on how the hierarchies of those other non-catholic churches dealt with the problem.

The statement said (as has already been quoted):

"While many speak of child abuse, i.e. pedophilia, it would be more correct to speak of ephebophilia, being a homosexual attraction to adolescent males. Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the age of 11 and 17 years old."

I would love to know how they got these statistics, this seems to be their own finding rather than independent research.

Anyway, I think their need to make this distinction is between pedophilia and ephebophilia is insensitive and bizarre. It is like that father ted quote really.
For a start, they're setting the bar low, at 11 years of age, on the definition of a paedophilia. I'd bet there are more 11-12 year old victims than 16-17.
Is this a way of saying "At least please stop calling us paedophiles"?

I can understand that good people in the church have had their morale destroyed by becoming guilty by association, but it seems to me this kind of statement helps nobody.

RGDATA!

postcynical wrote: »

I didn't read the articles or hear the reports but if the RCC is swiping out at other religions or trying to relativise or equivocate these horrors, it is simply deepening the wounds and increasing the sin.

Even if it turns out that 20% of the entire population are predisposed to paedophilia and only 5% of priests engage in it, that would mean nothing to me or to any other Catholic who feels shame and guilt at what was carried out in our name. Nobody who consecrates their life to Christ can behave like this. No organization that claims to represent Christ on Earth can cover up such evil. If spokespeople for the Church are even hinting at rallying the faithful against Christ, against the innocent, against all the trust and hope that makes up the real church, then I for one Catholic will help the atheists bash that organisation down (and help rebuild it again much stronger;))

Naturally I'm sceptical of the story!

This is a great post, but to be clear - it is an actual statement from the Holy See, read by the Vatican Envoy to the UN and is being widely reported on elsewhere than the Guardian.

Linus67

I think that a lot of homosexuals joined the church just so they could have easy access to little boys. Maybe paedophilia is the next stage of homosexuality.

The reason why the Church covered up the abuse (and in a lot of cases actively promoted it by moving the homosexual priests around the Diocese) is because some people in the higher echelons were also involved in abusing boys.

Can anyone tell me why is the word paedophilia only used when describing a perverted priest who abused a boy? Why don't people describe them as being homosexual as well?

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

When one priest abuses a child it is an individual acting terribly, but when it is covered up by the organisation then it becomes a conspiracy, which makes people more outraged, because people should feel that once it is known that this person is doing these things it should be stopped straight away.

+1 Agree completely. However the difference in reporting is there, I'm only judging by this country and our media and I suppose we had a preocccupation with the RCC as it was. Just seems sometimes to have had a snowball effect, i.e. another paedophile priest.I can't remember ever hearing about abuse by another denomination on RTE anyway in the last few years anyway.

Linus67 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why is the word paedophilia only used when describing a perverted priest who abused a boy? Why don't people describe them as being homosexual as well?

Have you ever heard of anyone being described as a heterosexual paedophile?

postcynical

Linus67 wrote: »

I think that a lot of homosexuals joined the church just so they could have easy access to little boys. Maybe paedophilia is the next stage of homosexuality.

If you replaced homosexuals with 'sexual predators' then your first sentence might make sense. Your second sentence is objectionable. Do you think non-celibate heterosexual men progress to the next stage of fancying pre-pubescent girls? Don't bother answering, I don't want the discussion.

The reason why the Church covered up the abuse (and in a lot of cases actively promoted it by moving the homosexual priests around the Diocese) is because some people in the higher echelons were also involved in abusing boys.

You are deliberately conflating homosexual priests with child abusers. This is objectionable.

Can anyone tell me why is the word paedophilia only used when describing a perverted priest who abused a boy? Why don't people describe them as being homosexual as well?

Because most people aren't nasty, stupid or evil.

Zombrex

Linus67 wrote: »

Can anyone tell me why is the word paedophilia only used when describing a perverted priest who abused a boy? Why don't people describe them as being homosexual as well?

Because homosexuality and paedophilia are different things. The vast majority of homosexuals men have no interest in "little boys", just like the vast majority of heterosexual men have no interest in "little girls". A paedophile who molests children of the same sex as them may not be homosexual (have attraction to adults of the same sex) and vice versa (a homosexual male paedophile may molest young girls)

Paedophilia is a specific attraction to prepubescent children. It is not the sex of the child that they find attractive, it is the age.

So if a male priest molests a boy you can't assume that the priest is homosexual. He might be homosexual, he might be heterosexual, or he might be an exclusive paedophilie, finding no adult of either sex sexually arosing.

Linus67

I was not referring to priests who abuse girls. And anyway, the majority of abuse was perpetrated against boys. So the abusers are homosexual.

I honestly think that some homosexuals will go on to abuse boys. And then from there who knows? Maybe bestiality?

It is truly despicable to be attracted to the same sex. People who are obviously have a mental condition. And I do feel sorry for such people. I am not one of those fools who mock and belittle them. Society actively promotes their lifestyle when it should be helping them. There should be some help out there for these vulnerable people.

Handsome Bob

Linus67 wrote: »

I honestly think that some homosexuals will go on to abuse boys. And then from there who knows? Maybe bestiality?

Can you elaborate on why you think that please.

It is truly despicable to be attracted to the same sex. People who are obviously have a mental condition.

Of course they do, that's the only way to explain their "deviance" from what you believe right?

prinz

Linus67 wrote: »

I honestly think that some homosexuals will go on to abuse boys..

I honestly think some babies grow up to be murderers.

What about people who believe in ghosts? Do they have mental conditions?

PDN

Let's have less of the nonsense.

1. Homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to commit child abuse.

2. Implying that homosexuality is a stepping stone to bestiality is unacceptable.

It is fine to discuss why homosexual practices are unbiblical etc. But downright homophobia is unwelcome in this forum.

Zombrex

Linus67 wrote: »

I was not referring to priests who abuse girls.

You should be, since that is paedophilia as well.

Linus67 wrote: »

And anyway, the majority of abuse was perpetrated against boys. So the abusers are homosexual.

No, the abusers are paedophiles.

Again the adult sexual orientation of the paedophile is not connected to the sex of the child they desire to abuse. A male heterosexual paedophile can and often does abuse boys

Linus67 wrote: »

I honestly think that some homosexuals will go on to abuse boys.

Possibly, but that is because they are paedophiles. Some heterosexuals will also go on to abuse boys (and girls) because they are paedophiles.

Linus67 wrote: »

And then from there who knows? Maybe bestiality?

Doubtful, I think you would have to go a long way to find a homosexual paedophile who likes bestiality. That would be quite a specific case.

Linus67 wrote: »

It is truly despicable to be attracted to the same sex.

That is a contradiction. It can't be both despicable and attractive.

You can find it despicable because you don't find it attractive. They do find it attractive, so they obviously don't mind or find it despicable. Many homosexuals find heterosexual behaviour disgusting.

I can think that it would be disgusting to kiss a boy without assuming that a girl should also find it disgusting to kiss a boy, so while I think homosexual acts are disgusting I have no problem with the idea that a homosexual wouldn't, that they would enjoy them as I enjoy heterosexual acts.

Linus67 wrote: »

Society actively promotes their lifestyle when it should be helping them.

I think they help them by actively promoting their lifestyle. Repressing who you are simply because others don't approve is never healthy or helpful.

heavyballs

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps then you missed the various cases of CofE ministers being caught for possessing child pornography/making child pornography/abusing children etc. I wouldn't blame you though, it was never plastered across headline news. :rolleyes:.

that was for sure a terrible case although i defo would say a rare one in that religion,
do you really beleive a vicar for eg. is as likely as a celibate priest to abbuse,get real.Let the catholic priests marry and i might come back to the church

postcynical

heavyballs wrote: »

that was for sure a terrible case although i defo would say a rare one in that religion,
do you really beleive a vicar for eg. is as likely as a celibate priest to abbuse,get real.Let the catholic priests marry and i might come back to the church

I think it's equally objectionable to suggest that a celibate man is likely to be a paedophile as it is to suggest that a homosexual man is likely to be a paedophile. Think about what you're proclaiming.

prinz

heavyballs wrote: »

that was for sure a terrible case although i defo would say a rare one in that religion,

What case? I didn't point to a particular case..

heavyballs wrote: »

do you really beleive a vicar for eg. is as likely as a celibate priest to abbuse,get real.Let the catholic priests marry and i might come back to the church

Ability to marry/marriage is in no way indicative of someone's ability to engage in abuse. Most abuse occurs within families. Square that one.

Zombrex

heavyballs wrote: »

that was for sure a terrible case although i defo would say a rare one in that religion,
do you really beleive a vicar for eg. is as likely as a celibate priest to abbuse,get real.Let the catholic priests marry and i might come back to the church

It would be naive to believe that priests abuse children because they are not having adult sexual relationships (ie if they did it would get it out of their system). Not sure that is what you are suggesting mind.

It is possible that if priests married the priesthood would be less appealing for paedophiles to hide in, which may reduce the number of paedophile priests, but you aren't going to reduce the number of paedophiles.

heavyballs

postcynical wrote: »

I think it's equally objectionable to suggest that a celibate man is likely to be a paedophile as it is to suggest that a homosexual man is likely to be a paedophile. Think about what you're proclaiming.

.

this must be a new thing on boards!
one's not allowed have an opinion of one's own,what's you're saying makes no sence,a str8 man gets off with women,a gay man is born gay and gers off with men,a priest gets off by reading the bible and preaching.Ok then:rolleyes:

postcynical

heavyballs wrote: »

.

this must be a new thing on boards!
one's not allowed have an opinion of one's own,what's you're saying makes no sence,a str8 man gets off with women,a gay man is born gay and gers off with men,a priest gets off by reading the bible and preaching.Ok then:rolleyes:

You're allowed to have an opinion and if it's a stupid opinion that might be pointed out to you. You can defend it and claim it's not a stupid opinion, reconsider it, or perhaps try and re-articulate it if you feel it didn't really reflect what you think.

You seem to have a fairly 1-dimensional view of what it means to be a man.

heavyballs

postcynical wrote: »

You seem to have a fairly 1-dimensional view of what it means to be a man.

feel free to elaborate if you wish on the above

Winty

Robin made a great comment on the aggressive henchman Silvano Tomasi.
He also had another classic
“As the Catholic Church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it”
So there you have it folks, stop picking on the Catholics it’s not just them go and blame somebody else
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0131.htm

Stephentlig

Buddist monks also keep celebate, and there are many who are succesful at it.

Celibacy will always remain in the church, its embedded in the scriptures.
Christ was chaste. when a man gives himself to a woman, he is giving all of himself to her, just as she is him. when a man denies the temptations of the flesh he is giving himself completely to Christ.
celibacy is however church practice not dogma, but it is a practice that shall never die.

Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

those who think that celibacy is the reason for the sex scandals is quite a fallacious view. they also have to contend with the many thousands of priests who managed to remain celebate their whole lives.

There are also just ordinary men in the world who arent religious and yet never had sex or relations with women, yet they seem to do just fine also.

I also suggest that people read Pope John paul the seconds book ''theology of the Body'' its a big book but an interesting read all the same.

I also invite you to take a look at my site, www.thebloodofthemartyrs.blogspot.com

heavyballs

Winty wrote: »

Robin made a great comment on the aggressive henchman Silvano Tomasi.
He also had another classic
“As the Catholic Church has been busy cleaning its own house, it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it”
So there you have it folks, stop picking on the Catholics it’s not just them go and blame somebody else
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0131.htm

and would you have the stats to back up this.I think there is every reason to pick on the catholic church.The amount of cover ups by the vatican which have come out is an absolute joke.Your a typical head in the sand catholic,get real,the amount of abuse throughout the church proves there is something fundimentally wrong with priesthood,if not ,explain why it was so widespread.

heavyballs

those who think that celibacy is the reason for the sex scandals is quite a fallacious view. they also have to contend with the many thousands of priests who managed to remain celebate their whole lives.

where's your proof of the thousands of priests that have remained celibate,lets not forget it was nuns they were abusing aswell as boys.
it's not natural to be celibate,i don't care what it says in the bible because it goes against your natural animal instinct


There are also just ordinary men in the world who arent religious and yet never had sex or relations with women, yet they seem to do just fine also.


How many r we talking about here?Very small amount indeed i would say.