"no, I'm actually an athiest"

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

I've already quoted figures from the "Irish Catholic" which suggest that a priest is FORTY TIMES more likely to be a convicted pedophiles than a regular member of the public.

Forty times more likely according to the IC.

If you only take one thing away from this thread, then take that figure

Where do they get those figures from out of curiosity? And why would that be the case?

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

He didn't say that. At all.

He said ' It's kind of part of the job description'.

mossyc123

robindch wrote: »

I've already quoted figures from the "Irish Catholic" which suggest that a priest is FORTY TIMES more likely to be a convicted pedophiles than a regular member of the public.

Forty times more likely according to the IC.

If you only take one thing away from this thread, then take that figure

And Prinz has already quoted a report which sais that Clergymen had a 3.2% likelihood of being paedophiles as opposed to 4.4% for babysitters. Whose more righter?!

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

Again, it is the organisation and how they deal with it that is the problem. If a plumber or mechanic or greengrocer abuses, their employer would not deny this and just move them to another area to continue their abuse.

You may want to look into the US public education system.... and say the US Boy Scouts investigation.

Saganist

Audrey,

Can you tell me if the RCC has said they are sorry for the abuse scandel yet ?

Or, more deviously, did they just look for forgiveness ?

smash

mossyc123 wrote: »

And Prinz has already quoted a report which sais that Clergymen had a 3.2% likelihood of being paedophiles as opposed to 4.4% for babysitters. Whose more righter?!

No, he quoted a report that said 3.2% of paedophiles were Clergymen, not 3.2% of Clergymen were paedophiles. There's a big difference.

prinz wrote: »

You may want to look into the US public education system.... and say the US Boy Scouts investigation.

So what, I'll say again: Does that distract from the abuse the catholic church has been part of?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where in the description of the priesthood does it say you have to be a Child Molester to join or that in joining you must agree to spend your life abusing children?

Did you actually read my post????

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

And the "it" was...?

Seriously? The prediliction to abuse children. This was what came before that.

It's not exactly a secret that the numbers of homosexual priests are utterly distorted when compared to the rest of society, and it's quite likely that the number of pedophiles in the clergy is equally higher than average.

optogirl

prinz wrote: »

You may want to look into the US public education system.... and say the US Boy Scouts investigation.

or I may not want to - fairly horrific reading I'd imagine. And what has that got to do with it? Other organisations harbour sexual predators so lay off the RCC? I live in Ireland and my country and countrymen/women have been stilted and abused by the RCC so that is what I am talking about.

coffee_cake

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He said ' It's kind of part of the job description'.

Maybe instead of inserting your own meaning for "it" you could take the one from his post?

Shenshen

prinz wrote: »

And that argument has been demonstrated to have no basis whatsoever in terms of likelihood of abuse occuring.

Out of honest curiosity, where would I find the figures on that?

AudreyHepburn

Saganist wrote: »

Audrey,

Can you tell me if the RCC has said they are sorry for the abuse scandel yet ?

Or, more deviously, did they just look for forgiveness ?

I don't think so no. Which is dreadful I know.

optogirl

Shenshen wrote: »

Did you actually read my post????

It would be fair to assume the answer to that is No

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

Maybe instead of inserting your own meaning for "it" you could take the one from his post?

I thought I was. What was the 'it' then?

kylith

mossyc123 wrote: »

Paying out to the victims yes?
Sounds like a good solution to me, patrons of the Church pay for the crimes of the Church. Would you prefer if the State had to pay all the Churches share as well?! I personally have no trouble with any money I put into the basket going towards victims of abuse

I think that the bloke in the funny hat with the palace full of treasure should pay for it.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where do they get those figures from out of curiosity?

From the prison service -- they're convicted pedophiles, serving jail sentences at the time (about two years back). I haven't rung up the prison service to verify this number, but it seems as if it's in the right ballpark to me.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And why would that be the case?

Lots of potential reasons, but I'd say that one of them is because they're denied the opportunity to have legitimate sex, so they go after the illegitimate stuff.

Also, a lot of them were linked with schools and the easy availability of kids -- I recall one priest from my school who used to hang around the boys showers all the time.

There are other reasons, but this isn't the right forum for discussing them.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Did you actually read my post????

I did. Maybe I took it up wrong though?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He said ' It's kind of part of the job description'.

She.
And she said that it's part of the job description making the job very unattractive for people with a normal sex life. So who remains to fill the vacancies?

Saganist

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I don't think so no. Which is dreadful I know.

Point proven.

Do you still want to support this Church ? If so, why ?

Oh, And one other thing.

Why have they not said sorry yet ?

optogirl

robindch wrote: »

From the prison service -- they're convicted pedophiles, serving jail sentences at the time (about two years back). I haven't rung up the prison service to verify this number, but it seems as if it's in the right ballpark to me.Lots of potential reasons, but I'd say that one of them is because they're denied the opportunity to have legitimate sex, so they go after the illegitimate stuff.

Also, a lot of them were linked with schools and the easy availability of kids -- I recall one priest from my school who used to hang around the boys showers all the time.

There are other reasons, but this isn't the right forum for discussing them.

Yeah, I think the catholic attitude to sex is a huge part of this. it is wrong for a priest to even masturbate so why should he view abusing a child as any worse? It's all sin in the church's eyes.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

She.
And she said that it's part of the job description making the job very unattractive for people with a normal sex life. So who remains to fill the vacancies?

Ah ok I get you now. Sorry, genuine mistaken I promise.

Saganist wrote: »

Point proven.

Do you still want to support this Church ? If so, why ?

Yes because there still honest decent hardworking clergymen and women there who want only to serve their community and their god and would never dream of hurting a child.

Anyhow I'm leaving this argument here because this is way OT.

AudreyHepburn

Saganist wrote: »

Why have they not said sorry yet ?

No idea. Clearly they don't believe they've done anything wrong.

coffee_cake

I really have to admit I'm puzzled as to why someone who doesn't have any catholic beliefs, doesn't want to support the church because of the cover ups, is so defensive of them and wants to belong...

AudreyHepburn

bluewolf wrote: »

I really have to admit I'm puzzled as to why someone who doesn't have any catholic beliefs, doesn't want to support the church because of the cover ups, is so defensive of them and wants to belong...

Oh Jesus don't go there again please!!!!!

Saganist

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No idea. Clearly they don't believe they've done anything wrong.

Nothing to do with admitting liability to the victims of abuse and therefore being liable to pay compensation to said victims ?

No way, the RCC is too sneaky to admit that.

Lets ask for "forgiveness" instead. WHAT A COP OUT !

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

From the prison service -- they're convicted pedophiles, serving jail sentences at the time (about two years back). I haven't rung up the prison service to verify this number, but it seems as if it's in the right ballpark to me.Lots of potential reasons, but I'd say that one of them is because they're denied the opportunity to have legitimate sex, so they go after the illegitimate stuff.

Also, a lot of them were linked with schools and the easy availability of kids -- I recall one priest from my school who used to hang around the boys showers all the time.

There are other reasons, but this isn't the right forum for discussing them.

Very interesting Rob.

Maybe you could PM the other reasons? I really am curious!

Saganist

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah ok I get you now. Sorry, genuine mistaken I promise.



Yes because there still honest decent hardworking clergymen and women there who want only to serve their community and their god and would never dream of hurting a child.

Anyhow I'm leaving this argument here because this is way OT.

My neighbour does all of that hardworking community stuff. And he doesn't even believe in God.

How the hell did that happen ?

:D

AudreyHepburn

Saganist wrote: »

Nothing to do with admitting liability to the victims of abuse and therefore being liable to pay compensation to said victims ?

Yes that too!

AudreyHepburn

Saganist wrote: »

My neighbour does all of that hardworking community stuff. And he doesn't even believe in God.

How the hell did that happen ?

:D

Never said you couldn't be those things without believing in God

sponsoredwalk

In all fairness scolding Audrey for contributing to her parish is a big
double standard. Have you ever bought American goods? You've contributed
to the American Invasion of the middle east & helped keep the economy going
while they murdered innocent people. How about their support of Israel's
policies of forming Bantustan's in Palestine? Ever bought anything
in Lebanon or good from there? Most likely funded Hezbollah terrorists. You
may not have meant to do that but in some way or other you have, this logic
just does not hold up so I don't think it's fair to scold Audrey, she means
well when she does it & there is no way to actually show funding a
charity actually goes to covering up paedophilia. I think there are other
reasons not to contribute to the RCC but this reason in not one of them.