Hmmm … does this really have to do with child abuse or, to use the Reagan perspective, are these arrests and possibly further imprisonments of high level Catholic authorities “bargaining chips” to convince the Catholic Church that her ban on abortion should be … how shall I say … “seriously reconsidered?”Well spotted sir! They are not being arrested because wiggling weenies in the asses of children is illegal. Oh no! Obviously these prisoners of conscience will be released when the Catholic church looses its stranglehold on all laws in all countries. After the progressive juggernaut makes abortion mandatory perhaps these poor pawns will be allowed to once again taste the tender flesh of youth.
Someone named snarkysob picks on that:
I am convinced that Moriarty's work here is some of the greatest satire ever devised, of Swiftian quality. Either that, or he is in need of continuing electroshock therapy and heavy medication. There's no serious dispute that priests have abused their parishioners, and that the hierarchy (local, national and international) have covered it up.Michael Moriarty responds as only he can:
Electro-shock.So while snarkysob's therapeutic advice is somewhat behind the times, uh, BINGO. But wait, there's more! It was a Catholic outfit that zapped Moriarty:
Yes.
In the Spring of 1964.
I was 23 years old.
In London, England.
There it is called ECT, electro-convulsive therapy.
The institution administering the treatment, ten of them, was called, ironically, The Priory.Yes, our man Michael is willing to back up the boy rapers IN SPITE of their willingness to scramble his circuits...or is there something still more insidious afoot?
The deeper irony is that it is … or was, at the time … ostensibly a Catholic nuthouse.
Yes, the occasional nun as nurse.
That same institution had already administered the same ungodly treatment, in punitive doses, 54 of them, to the American Communist, Paul Robson, in 1963.There it is! A traditional Catholic therapist would have had Moriarty take two ass-poundings and call him in the morning.
What was that Big, Deep Red Baritone doing in a Catholic nuthouse?
Or was he actually taken there because The Priory was not merely Catholic but Progressive Catholic?
102 comments:
And Kissinger. And condoms for five-yr. olds. And on. And on.
If nothing else, proof that ECT doesn't work on whatever Mr. Moriarty (That name can not be a coincidence.) should be diagnosed w/ beyond "Stendahl Syndrome."
I'll be cleansing my mind now. Watching a shopping channel or the Game Show Network for a while, just to ease back to reality.
Wait a minute. So this actor-pundit got electroshock in a Catholic institution and now Mother Church is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful church he has ever known in his life? The plot thickens.
But Paul Robeson was also there, therefore COMMIES, Q.E.D. Impeccable logic. I am in awe.
I guarantee you, if the Catholic Church condones abortion, we won’t hear any complaints about priests and child abuse in the mainstream press
And I guarantee you idiots and assholes like Moriarity will continue to condone child rape and tut-tut the punishment of the rapists as long as it's done by abortion foes.
Also, I can't find any evidence that the Priory hospital in Roehampton has or had anything Catholic about it besides the name, but either way how on Earth would "they even tortured the commie Robeson!" make them a "Progressive" institution? Most other cranks feel it was done with/by the CIA, how would that fit into his little narrative? Plus, wasn't that at the time Moriarty claims he was on the left as well?
Yeah, I noticed that Moriarty's claim seemed to be backed up by something unrelated to it, but how are you gonna have a conspiracy theory without that?
Moriarty's rejoinder was so goddamn unhinged.
I can't beleive that even a nut like Blightblart would publish this sort of whackaloonery.
Where did he defend the Church molesting children, I missed that part.
Hi Tancred! I know you missed that part.
Probably because it's not in there.
Tancred, if you can't see "they're really arresting child-raping Catholics because ABORTION" is something of a minimization of actual crimes committed you've gotta hand in your reading glasses.
Grav, even if that were the substance of his argument, that isn't what he's staying.
I am open to the idea that I am misreading a person who is demonstrably crazy.
Whether he's crazy or not, he never said or even implied that the Catholic Church is condoning pedophilia.
Moreover, if you don't believe that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated heavily by Communist agents... well... Check out Bella Dodd and the Venona files.
That the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union was heavily infiltrated by the Reds is a well-documented fact.
In any event, I'm not really sure what you're mooning about here, unless of course, you're just upset because you think abortion is a constitutional right.
Let's imagine Michael Moriarty reads Michael Moriarty's column. What hidden message might he see in that initial paragraph of his?
The church itself has spent centuries condoning child-rape through inaction and loudly crowing that persecution was for other reasons whenever there was an outcry: Moriarty's no different, though he may be crazier.
Moreover, if you don't believe that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated heavily by Communist agents...
An awfully good reason to dispense with the Catholic church I guess...
I got communists in your church, but you got church in my communists.
The church itself has spent centuries condoning child-rape through inaction and loudly crowing that persecution was for other reasons whenever there was an outcry: Moriarty's no different, though he may be crazier.
Sodomy's been a crime in the Vatican State at least since this century. So I don't get how you come up with that.
An awfully good reason to dispense with the Catholic church I guess...
A very good reason to hunt down and liquidate them.
We don't throw out the whole CIA for example because it has some homosexual moles, do we? But destruction of the Catholic Church is the general idea, glad you're starting to catch on.
Sodomy's been a crime in the Vatican State at least since this century. So I don't get how you come up with that.
Yes, that's kept them from sodomizing, that's for sure.
A very good reason to hunt down and liquidate them.
You get on that not-crazy-at-all project Tancred. I pray the progressive Catholics don't blend your brain.
Yes, that's kept them from sodomizing, that's for sure.
People break laws, so what? Your children, assuming you have them, are more likely to be abused in the public school system than they are in the Catholic one, even with all of the posers that are there.
It's like having a stock that breaks even or loses you a small percentage in a bull market.
The West is a bull market for virtue.
People break laws, so what?
People cover for them, that's what.
People cover for them, that's what.
Yes, that's what PEOPLE do, whether they're Catholic or not.
Perhaps you'd prefer to live in Spartan society, among the ancient Germans, or in the New York City Public School System where such things regarding the education of the young aren't such an issue?
Let's have it both ways! "They're fallible human beings, so don't blame the Church, and they're also representatives of the One True Faith and therefore infallible!" Hey, this is fun!
Apparently there is some juicy conspiracy theory about the New York public school system that I have missed out on. Pay no attention to that priest behind the curtain!
Dammit.
I am quite envious of McG's ability to attract barking loons.
My big sister had that same gift.
I gotta figure out how he's doing it...
Let's have it both ways! "They're fallible human beings, so don't blame the Church, and they're also representatives of the One True Faith and therefore infallible!" Hey, this is fun!
Fallible human beings do represent the Church, I don't think anyone said any differently, but there are quite a few people within the Catholic Church who portray themselves as Catholic but don't necessarily agree with it.
The Church has had a long history of this going back over its 2,000 year history and during the time of St. Athanasius in the 4th Century, over 80% of the Church's Bishops were guilty of one degree of Arianism or another.
Yes, I suppose it's fun to misrepresent people's comments or positions, but it doesn't do much, unfortunately to convince people of your position in the long run.
I guess I'm thankful for the opportunity to demonstrate that.
Hey, Tancred, something I've ALWAYS wondered. As long as you're here, maybe you can help me out with it.
What's the deal with the Holy Ghost thingie? I mean, I always hear folks say Christianity is monotheistic. So what's up with a divine ghost? And does it say "Boo"? Or is that whole "ghosts say boo" thing and urban legend? Let me know the facts, okay?
Umm. Unless I have to learn the secret handshake. 'Cause those frighten me...
I'm not seeing a persuasive argument being put forth that the systematic coverup of countless child-rape cases by men who are supposed to represent "God" is no big deal and we're all just being unfair to the poor misunderstood Catholic church, Seems to me like it's not MY job to convince others of MY position at this point.
SMcG, you've got a live one!
Yes, I suppose it's fun to misrepresent people's comments or positions
So Moriarty's positions are NOT that child rape by priests is being prosecuted because of abortion, and the reason priests rape children is because of communism?
Fallible human beings do represent the Church, I don't think anyone said any differently
I like this word "fallible" and I wonder if it has an opposite.
...the reason priests rape children is because of communism?
Why, yes. Are you confused?
And the reason I killed water buffalo is free trade.
It's all so clear now...
Who better to defend the Catholic Church and lecture us about the evils of Communism than a self-proclaimed "royalist"? Still pissed off about the French Revolution, no doubt.
I guess I'm thankful for the opportunity to demonstrate that.
Sadly, you have failed to convince us of your position in the long run.
Made the comment earlier about Public Schools being more dangerous for childrens' innocence than the Catholic Church.
If there was more honesty in the forum, you'd at least get the point that there are a LOT more sexual predators in the fields of education and psychology than in the priesthood. That's a demonstrable fact. Perhaps we should throw out the field of psychology too, since they're far worse than the Catholic Church is. No doubt, sexual deviant and manipulative psychologists get protected by their colleagues who cover up for them?
And one more point, yes, that the Communists have infiltrated American Society from the top to the bottom is so well-documented it's a truism.
If you persist in denying this, you'll start to look like the starry eyed and duped victims of Public School teacher abuse yourselves, but I have serious doubts about whether there's a single person who's been commenting on this forum so far who has even the slightest regard for objectivity and even less good will.
It is inevitable that men of bad will, who are unwilling to find out what they are obliged to know, are men of bad character as well.
The men who nailed Christ to the cross and spit on Him as he passed on His way to Golgotha were men like you. It's not that I'm Christ, but your anonymous rudeness demonstrates to me at least just how weak and feeble your claims are.
You make accusations, call names and disparage while complaining about how badly you're treated, so yes, we know you're not Christ, nor much like him. Also, if people are misconstruing you or Moriarty, why not actually correct them instead of just contradicting them? And some evidence for your claims and theories would nice.
And one more point, yes, that the Communists have infiltrated American Society from the top to the bottom is so well-documented it's a truism.
This is a symptom of dementia. Seek help.
You make accusations, call names and disparage while complaining about how badly you're treated, so yes, we know you're not Christ, nor much like him. Also, if people are misconstruing you or Moriarty, why not actually correct them instead of just contradicting them? And some evidence for your claims and theories would nice.
I don't think I've called anyone any names, but I've certainly been insulted and called names here myself.
I did actually cite sources to support my claims.
It's a fact that Joseph McCarthy was right in what he was saying to HUAC as proven by the Venona Files.
Never mind the actual facts.
And the stats for psychologists and public schools are well-attested to. I would have thought it was common knowledge by now... or it should be.
But a request for source material is about the most rational and coherent thing I've heard here so far. I'll see if I can find some source materials to catch you up to speed on the facts of the matter, and perhaps you'll know that you're being duped by people who want to demonize the Catholic Church.
You people seem blissfully unaware that all of this has been tried before.
The men who nailed Christ to the cross and spit on Him as he passed on His way to Golgotha were men like you.
Yes. Yes they were - we are - um, you know what I mean. Somebody's always giving the orders, and somebody's always carrying them out.
Problem here is you're responding to orders from an imaginary superhero who lives in outer space and some weird commie delusion. Not conducive to the appearance of rationality.
You're like the men who stood on the wooden box on the sidewalk and ranted at parking meters.
But hey, don't get me wrong. I LIKE those doods...
And one more point, yes, that the Communists have infiltrated American Society from the top to the bottom is so well-documented it's a truism.
He's onto something, now- the kid who bags groceries at the local Stop and Shop was lecturing shoppers on the need to grab onto the means of production.
If there was more honesty in the forum, you'd at least get the point that there are a LOT more sexual predators in the fields of education and psychology than in the priesthood. That's a demonstrable fact.
So demonstrate it already. Some comparative statistics might bolster your point, if you could be bothered to dig up whatever supposed facts you have to back up your claims. Must be the royalism: "I don't have to prove anything I say; I simply decree it and it is so!" (Since you seem to have such a hard-on for Joe McCarthy, it's not surprising you don't know the difference between assertion and argument.)
Not that "these other insitutions which are liberal that you liberals must therefore worship blindly are no better than the institution I blindly worship" is much of an argument in the first place, anyway. Does some spurious rumor about teachers or psychologists make documented ongoing behavior by priests better somehow?
Also, isn't 2010 a bit late for people to be wetting their pants about Communism? Or does your special definition include anything to the left of 19th century robber baron laissez-faire capitalism, as I suspect it does?
Psychologist-Patient sex abuse:
**Two years later, the American Journal of Psychiatry published data, based on a survey of the male members of the Los Angeles County Medical Society, suggesting that at least some therapists (about 10% of the psychiatrists) had in fact engaged in sex with one or more patients (Kardener, Fuller, & Mensch, 1973). The format of this survey formed the basis for the first national incidence study of therapist-patient sex, a study undertaken by two psychologists (Holroyd & Brodsky, 1977). They found, on the basis of a 70% return rate, that 11% of the male therapists and 2% of the female therapists reported engaging in erotic contact with at least one patient and that 80% of those therapists did so with more than one patient. Their work constituted a landmark in the profession's acknowledgment that a number of therapists were actually engaging in sexual intimacies with their patients. Numerous research studies followed (for reviews of this literature, see Gabbard, 1989 ; Pope, 1990; Pope & Bouhoutsos, 1986). Research and theory were brought to bear on the fact that the intimacies were frequently initiated after termination, a factor that, like initiating the intimacies outside of the office or only with patients who were "mature, " made them no less abusive or harmful (Brown, 1988; Ethics Committee of the APA, 1988; Gabbard & Pope, 1989; Pope, 1988; Vasquez, in press). The sexual abuse of patients could no longer continue as the "problem with no name", it is increasingly difficult to dismiss virtually all accusations as groundless, as the expression of individual psychopathology or of some innate female tendency to make false sex charges against men. Like rape, incest, and other forms of sexual abuse, sexual abuse of patients is no longer invisible.**
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070604690_pf.html
Suck on this...
You'll want to read your article again to find out whether or not child-raping was involved and whether or not the APA moved the practitioners across the country or the world to cover it up.
I said, sexual abuse, which is a serious breach of conduct in any event.
I haven't even gotten to child abuse and psychologists. We already know that there are significant numbers who fail when it comes to client-patient conduct.
In any event, that's 10% of them moving in to score on their psychologically vulnerable patients.
I guess it doesn't matter as long as they're adults.
I said, sexual abuse, which is a serious breach of conduct in any event.
Yes, it's simply terrible, which is why you're pointing all over the place to distract from the nest of abusers in the Catholic church.
I guess it doesn't matter as long as they're adults.
You know, it really doesn't matter as much if they're adults. By all means have the therapists stripped of their credentials, but hey, arrest the Pope too.
So "everybody does it" IS your defense, then?
I doubt anyone here is going to defend sexual abuse in any profession, even one that your little mind thinks is "liberal" or "Communist". Thanks for responding to the request, but it does not take away the stench of what's going on at the highest levels of the Catholic church. Nor does it explain what commies have to do with the issue.
[i]"You know, it really doesn't matter as much if they're adults. By all means have the therapists stripped of their credentials, but hey, arrest the Pope too."[/i]
1. You're assuming that psychologists don't abuse children and adolescents as well. We know that Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and other Holywood idiots aren't immune from those issues, and they're such moral people, you know.
2. You're assuming that the sexual abuse of children is essentially worse than the sexual abuse of someone who goes to receive attention for a psychological problem, despair, suicide and the things that immobilize people in the modern world, are not as bad?
Why not just abolish psychology altogether as a phoney practice riddled with a pack of letharios who are bent on molesting their patients?
I definitely think we should abolish the making of motion picture films and possibly some of the degenerates who make them.
Forgot this:
One thoughtful individual whistfuly thinks psychology might go away because of this problem:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490550/?page=3
You're assuming that the sexual abuse of children is essentially worse
Yes, silly me, I'm assuming that raping a child is worse than a psychiatrist having sex with an adult. While both are bad, one carries some extreme legal sanctions because normal people think raping a child is more than just unethical. That's not a defense of psychiatry or psychology, it's an acknowledgment that these two instances of sexual misconduct are different.
***"I doubt anyone here is going to defend sexual abuse in any profession, even one that your little mind [Are these sorts of barbs really necessary? If your case is so watertight, and you're so right, why are you so sensitive?] thinks is "liberal" or "Communist". Thanks for responding to the request, but it does not take away the stench of what's going on at the highest levels of the Catholic church. Nor does it explain what commies have to do with the issue."***
Yep, the reason I raised the issue of sexual abuse in other professions is to make the point that it's actually WORSE elsewhere, and if going by the arguments of some of the people here, we should be considering some kind of Pol Pot return to year 0, but you and your friends seem to think that the Church is somehow worse for all this.
Another point you fail to mention is the fact that the people who are doing this sort of thing share what I think I can safely assume is your own beliefs in moral relativism.
I don't think there is a single person here who believes in any kind of objectivity, unless its a selective objectivity which suddenly kicks in when we want to indict the institution of the Catholic Church.
Right, all liberals love Hollywood and worship all movie directors unequivocally. Really relevant to the discussion, uh-huh.
Royalist troll projects his royalism on everybody else. Can't conceive that not everyone worships the figureheads of their supposed tribe the way he does.
So, as long as we're throwing out red herrings that have nothing to do with the issue we were talking about, here's a question: do you believe that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is a mortal sin and it's better for the woman to die in agony? Just curious whether your passionate argument is based on a genuine concern for suffering, oppressed people or you just have an obsession with sex and authority.
Right, all liberals love Hollywood and worship all movie directors unequivocally. Really relevant to the discussion, uh-huh.
This isn't actually what I said. Perhaps you need to calm down and wait for a while before you post. Your emotive outbursts make you liable to personal attacks, begging the question and special pleading.
Another point you fail to mention is the fact that the people who are doing this sort of thing share what I think I can safely assume is your own beliefs in moral relativism.
1. Show me anything I have written here that demonstrates "moral relativism". Again, you are talking to the straw liberals in your dreams, not the people commenting here.
2. If you're going to go down that trail, isn't sexual abuse WORSE if it is committed by an authority figure who is appointed as an expert in what is moral? Isn't it even worse if said crime is covered up by higher authorities who also claim to be guardians of morality? However much of a sleazy creep Polanski may be, you can't pin that one on him.
Another point you fail to mention is the fact that the people who are doing this sort of thing share what I think I can safely assume is your own beliefs in moral relativism.
Moral relativism is pretty much defined by "That's not so bad, LOOK AT THOSE GUYS!"
Moral relativism is pretty much defined by "That's not so bad, LOOK AT THOSE GUYS!"
This pretty much says it all. I have nothing more to add.
if you don't believe that the Catholic Church has been infiltrated heavily by Communist agents
I'm puzzled by this concern about infiltration. I thought the main criterion for joining the Catholic Church was to be, umm, Catholic, which leaves a lot of scope for members to combine that with left-wing politics (not to mention the other lot of infiltrators from the Fascist side).
If the concern is that these infiltrators might secretly be disloyal, owing their true allegiance to some other authority who is not the Pope, I am happy to leave the issue of "true allegiance" to the country of which these mixed-loyalty people are subjects.
If there is an underlying argument that collective bad behaviour on the part of the Church (e.g. child abuse) is really the work of communists, it needs to be fleshed out somewhat more.
The ease with which Russian Communists joined the Orthodox Church within Russia does not really say much about religions in other countries.
I guess it doesn't matter as long as they're adults.
I for one do distinguish between sex with children and sex with consenting adults. HINT: one is a crime.
1. You're assuming that psychologists don't abuse children and adolescents as well. We know that Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and other Holywood idiots aren't immune from those issues, and they're such moral people, you know.
Listing some Hollywood idiots to bolster an attack on psychologists seems a tad incoherent or unfocussed to me, but OH LOOK SOMETHING SHINY I am not in a position to condemn someone else for being easily distracted.
Dood just totally ignored my request for holy ghost info. Guess I DID need to know the secret handshake.
Dammit. I hate those...
They found, on the basis of a 70% return rate, that 11% of the male therapists and 2% of the female therapists reported engaging in erotic contact with at least one patient and that 80% of those therapists did so with more than one patient.
A study in Canada found "clergy were sexually exploiting their parishioners at twice the rate of secular therapists" and Richard Sipe's research led him to the conclusion that "at any one time 20% of priests are involved in a sexual relationship with a woman." Besides which, what's your point? That abuse is not covered by the press unless it's priests? Your citation is from the Washington Post, and I'd bet just about any link you'd provide on teacher abuse would be from a major newspaper, too. Priests have not been singled out except that the reaction from the church has earned public ire in a way fired teachers and indicted doctors haven't.
Moral relativism is pretty much defined by "That's not so bad, LOOK AT THOSE GUYS!"
That's not a very clear definition. It's an attempt at irony, but it's not an honest definition.
Here's another article:
http://fratres.wordpress.com/2010/06/12/researcher-clerical-sexual-abuse-separating-fact-fiction-and-anti-catholic-bias/
I know Richard Sipe very well. He is an advocate for greater modernization of the Church, and while some of his attempts to define the problem are interesting, and that he was concerned about the problem long before many other people were, indicates to me a certain complicity, either witting or unwitting in the entire thing.
I have noted that he collaborates with ACLU ambulance chaser, Jeff Anderson, in his own personal crusade against religion.
These people could care less about the victims, they're part of another, more involved plot aimed at the destruction of the Catholic Church.
Like I've said before, hence my concern with infiltration, this isn't something new, it's not like it hasn't been tried before, it's well-documented in sources I've mentioned.
Just take a look at what's happened to Catholic education under Land O' Lakes and you should be able to perceive that the means of propagating Catholic teaches, things like the criminality and sinfulness of Sodomy and a host of other crimes, are in almost complete abeyance throughout the Catholic curricula, save perhaps independent schools which are not associated or only loosely associated with official Catholic chanceries and educational offices.
Hence my problem with the moral relativism. I don't understand why people who have no problem insulting complete strangers anonymously, simply because they don't agree with them, and people who aren't of good-will in general, eager for gossip, would scruple so much about what happens to adolescents in Catholic institutions?
The same people are relatively silent when it's done by psychologists, teachers and policemen at a greater rate, and are even more unwilling to ask the question why this is the case.
The same people are relatively silent when it's done by psychologists, teachers and policemen at a greater rate, and are even more unwilling to ask the question why this is the case.
Well Mr. Relativist, teachers and policemen are actually necessary and the Catholic church is not. I'll give you psychologists for free!
I can't tell who "the same people" are outside your head: teachers and policemen and psychologists who rape kids get sent to jail, not moved by their superiors to a desk job.
Hot of the presses and surprisingly enough, from Der Spiegel:
How the Left is Responsible for the Sexual Abuse Crisis
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,702679,00.html
How the Left is Responsible for the Sexual Abuse Crisis
Oh dear. Prior to the German example in the 60s Catholicism was free of abusers. That's rich.
Once again, moral relativism.
How is that moral relativism?
You can't just use a word without knowing what it means.
that he was concerned about the problem long before many other people were, indicates to me a certain complicity, either witting or unwitting in the entire thing.
Ad hominem that in no way addresses whether he and many others are correct in that the clergy of all churches including the Catholic church abuse at a significantly higher rate than members of other institutions, in direct contradiction to your citationless claim.
How is that moral relativism?
You can't just use a word without knowing what it means.
It's two words.
But yes, I expect an apologist for child rapists would be confused.
Ad hominem that in no way addresses whether he and many others are correct in that the clergy of all churches including the Catholic church abuse at a significantly higher rate than members of other institutions, in direct contradiction to your citationless claim.
If you're going to use those terms, you should at least know what they mean.
That Mr. Sipe works with Jeffry Anderson on his ACLU, Soviet style, purge is an established fact.
Mr. Sipe also wants to change the Church structurally and doctrinally to something it never was and something it will never be.
You may look them up and get back to me with your interpretation of their meaning.
@tigris:
An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Tancred, you're plainly fairly stupid and quite possibly crazy. That's not an ad hominem, it's an evaluation of the evidence so far in which you have cited bullshit, asserted facts not in evidence, and compared adults having sex to child rape. Once again, seek help.
"Tancred, you're plainly fairly stupid and quite possibly crazy. That's not an ad hominem, it's an evaluation of the evidence so far in which you have cited bullshit, asserted facts not in evidence, and compared adults having sex to child rape. Once again, seek help."
Glad to see you're taking it so well. You obviously don't want to address the evidence because it proves that you're dead wrong and absolutely incapable of rational discourse at least when it comes to the Catholic Church.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is neither the cause of, nor is it the primary agent of sexual abuse, either of adults or children.
In fact, other professions have significant problems with this, i.e., teachers, pyschologists, volunteers for children's programs, and the like.
So are you admitting it's ad hominem, as I stated, just claiming it's not fallacious? As for its fallaciousness, you didn't address his research, nor that of others, merely asserted his supposed Communism without showing how it would negate his (and others') research or support your claims. Which continue unsupported.
The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is neither the cause of, nor is it the primary agent of sexual abuse
You can feel free to point to somebody who asserted this. Maybe it'll prove you're not crazy.
So are you admitting it's ad hominem, as I stated, just claiming it's not fallacious? As for its fallaciousness, you didn't address his research, nor that of others, merely asserted his supposed Communism without showing how it would negate his (and others') research or support your claims. Which continue unsupported.
I merely pointed out to you that not all ad hominems are fallacious. Yours clearly are.
You can feel free to point to somebody who asserted this. Maybe it'll prove you're not crazy.
Look, if you have a reasonable argument, I'd be glad to entertain it, but your namecalling isn't going to substantiate whatever it is your case is.
Problem is that long before the Catholic Church was founded, there was sexual abuse.
In fact, the VERY abhorrence you have for the sexual abuse of children and adolescence is the result of a Christian upbringing.
If it weren't for the Catholic Church and the Jews, you wouldn't have taboos against such things.
That's pretty comical in light of your statement that we don't need the Catholic Church.
Look, if you have a reasonable argument, I'd be glad to entertain it
Guy, it's a little late in the game to pretend you're not some crazy loon who'll address any argument I care to make.
Guy, it's a little late in the game to pretend you're not some crazy loon who'll address any argument I care to make.
I guarantee you, you wouldn't be talking to me like this in person. Despite the constant rudeness and frankly puerile nature of many of your comments, I've never been anything but courteous to you.
Why don't you cool down the anti-Catholic bigotry and make your point?
I merely pointed out to you that not all ad hominems are fallacious. Yours clearly are.
Indeed, sir, you did not. You implied it was not an ad hominem by claiming I was using the word incorrectly. Do you retract that? And you accuse me of fallacious ad hominem; because I stated that you have not supported your assertions? Feel free to correct me with links that prove Sipe's supposed Communism nullifies his research and the research of others, links that show that contrary to all their research that in fact teachers, psychologists, or whatever profession you like are worse sexual abusers, ANYTHING.
that he was concerned about the problem long before many other people were, indicates to me a certain complicity, either witting or unwitting in the entire thing.
ACLU, Soviet style, purge
This being a blog devoted to irony and snark, I hate to question a fellow-commenter's sincerity, but it's hard to see any reason for making nutty Bizarro-world statements like that except to wind us up in the hope of sparking a vehement response.
All of the REAL commies I've met in my whole life (um, except for the ones I killed, but c'mon, that really wasn't MY idea) seemed like fine, righteous humans who's country believed in a different political/economic theory. Plus, they had the advantage of coming from a REALLY attractive group...
You can find everything in the Mental Health field. You can find fraud, lies deceit, sexual depravity and coverups. You can find everything, perhaps, except Mental Health.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2010/07/sexual-abuse-by-mental-healthcare.html
All of the REAL commies I've met in my whole life (um, except for the ones I killed, but c'mon, that really wasn't MY idea) seemed like fine, righteous humans who's country believed in a different political/economic theory. Plus, they had the advantage of coming from a REALLY attractive group...
You mean like Kim Philby?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Philby
You can find everything in the Catholic church. You can find fraud, lies deceit, sexual depravity and coverups. You can find everything, perhaps, except God.
Boy, this is easy.
Sex Abuse in Mental Health looks like it's far worse than in the Catholic Church, I'm sorry to say.
It's interesting how the accounts of the psychologist predators are similar to the liberal priests. They always portray their sexual abuse as an up to date therapeutic approach.
The Catholic Church has never condoned this approach to dealing with traumatized persons, but the Psychological field has, on a number of occasions, publicly advocated such treatments privately and in public.
Funny that.
But I can't expect a partisan like you to look at the facts.
See, if the Catholic Church weren't in the picture, you'd still have sexual abuse of children.
Ancient Greece didn't have any Catholics in it, but the sexual abuse of children was almost universally tolerated if not memorialized.
Sex Abuse in Mental Health looks like it's far worse than in the Catholic Church, I'm sorry to say.
No, it actually doesn't. If you follow the link you supplied you'll find that the anecdotes about therapists refer to folks who are arrested, jailed et cetera.
They don't have a large organization behind them that wants them to get away with molesting. That'd be the Catholic church in the case we're discussing.
They don't have a large organization behind them that wants them to get away with molesting. That'd be the Catholic church in the case we're discussing.
Actually, they do. Of the 25% that ADMIT to having sex with their patients, one in 20 are children, which outstrips the numbers I have for priests considerably. And we're talking about people who ADMIT to it.
You're also wrong about a big organization backing the coverup. The entire Mental Health Field works to cover it up and you touched on part of that yourself, where they have managed to get sex abuse with their adult patients (which really constitutes rape) categorized as rape.
Tancred, you just can't do math. You quoted a different number above, but when you find a bigger number you'll go with it. That's not to mention that "the number you have" likely doesn't correlate to numbers people actually take seriously when tabulating abuse by priests, which at the very least is comparable to abuse at the hands of therapists.
So, if you think abuse by psychotherapists is reason for the mental health profession to be shut down - and you obviously have personal reasons for that - you'll have to allow that the same reasoning demands closure of the Catholic church.
It's not like there aren't other churches around.
One thing that's pretty interesting is that despite how common sex abuse by therapists is, there isn't a whole lot of literature out there. Of course, there's literature out there with numbers, and I know you're not going to like them when I cite them.
I know that mental healthcare workers are more prone to this, by the nature of the kinds of people who engage in its practice.
People who don't believe in immutable moral laws handed down by God don't care that much when nobody is looking.
You can't seem to get the fact in your head that the Catholic Church isn't the problem here, the erroneous ideas in peoples' heads are the problem, and while the Healthcare Profession doesn't have these hard and fast rules, they've also conceived the liceity of therapists having sexual intercourse with their clients or patients. No where does the Catholic Church promote this.
Point is, without the Catholic Church, you probably wouldn't have much abhorrence of adults having sex with minors.
People who don't believe in immutable moral laws handed down by God don't care that much when nobody is looking.
Tancred, there aren't any of those. Which is why abuse by priests is so disgusting. It's in the service of nothing.
And once again you avoid the issue: if the "Mental Health Field" should be shut down, then so should the church.
Your source doesn't say 25% of therapists sexually abused patients, it says 25% of therapists in the UK reported "having treated a patient" who'd been in a sexual relationship with a therapist - totally inappropriate, but we can't discover anything about the number of therapists who abuse from that. Also, FWIW, if you feel the possible biases of sources should be taken into account, you should look at CCHR more deeply.
In any event, 1 in 20 of those who admit to having sex with their patients admit to having sex with minors.
Hmm, that's a lot of people. It's about 1.25% of people who admit to having sex with children, but not caught, assuming the accuracy of the English sample.
For Catholic Priests it's around 1.5-1.8 according to this:
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
And those are the priests who get caught.
Is it safe to assume that if we were to look at how many psychologists were actually caught, we'd have a significantly higher number of child molesters than we find in the Catholic Church.
Another factor you'd have to look at too is that sex abuse by Catholic priests is significantly down since the 80s when it was first being perceived as a problem.
Your source doesn't say 25% of therapists sexually abused patients, it says 25% of therapists in the UK reported "having treated a patient" who'd been in a sexual relationship with a therapist - totally inappropriate, but we can't discover anything about the number of therapists who abuse from that. Also, FWIW, if you feel the possible biases of sources should be taken into account, you should look at CCHR more deeply.
The British Study was only cited by CCHR, but you definitely have a point there.
The anecdotal evidence I cited is really scary and it shows there's a definite problem with sexual abuse of minors in the MHC Field.
If we take the stats just for England, it indicates a rate at least as high as that for priestly abusers, but is probably much higher, and as soon as I find a study which details it out, I'll let you know.
Is it safe to assume that if we were to look at how many psychologists were actually caught, we'd have a significantly higher number of child molesters than we find in the Catholic Church.
Again, if you're arguing that one field should be shut down, so should the other. And in the case of the church we have ample evidence that authorities including the current pope were covering up crimes.
When's Cardinal Law's next vacation to Boston?
Tancred, there aren't any of those. Which is why abuse by priests is so disgusting. It's in the service of nothing.
And once again you avoid the issue: if the "Mental Health Field" should be shut down, then so should the church.
There aren't any of whom? People who don't believe in God who practice Psychology and Psychiatry? I'd say the overwhelming majority of them are atheists or agnostics who have a utilitarian view of morality.
You're assuming the antecedent there, that the Catholic Church is an erroneous, corrupt organization.
I would think it was obvious that it was beneficial, but that would take a history lesson, and is apart from my original point that the Catholic Church suffers from the same ills as the society around her, especially when so many of Her ministers turn their backs on what the Church really teaching, shouldn't be suprising that if you want to be 'open to the world' that you're going to have the same ills the world has, but all that notwisthanding, the Catholic Church, as liberal as she's become in so many areas is still a lot safer place to put your kids than in Public Schools, Psychologist's offices or at the Police Precinct....
When's Cardinal Law's next vacation to Boston?
Caredinal Law is nothing compared to Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Bernardin +1997, Archbishop Weakland or now, Cardinal Daneels!
Have you guys seen the Belgian Catechism yet? It was pretty horrific. That is absolutely NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, but they did have a lot of help from local psychology professionals.
See, if the Church goes away, so do taboos against adults having sex with children.
There aren't any of whom?
I was referring to "immutable laws handed down by god" but there are very few people who believe in those who are Christian.
Tancred here is some news: your sky fairy does not exist and justifying the survival of an organization that protects serial child-rapists on the basis of low abuse rates is therefore perverse.
I was referring to "immutable laws handed down by god" but there are very few people who believe in those who are Christian.
Tancred here is some news: your sky fairy does not exist and justifying the survival of an organization that protects serial child-rapists on the basis of low abuse rates is therefore perverse.
If those laws don't exist, then your abhorrence of adults using children sexually is a pretense.
Indeed, the German Greens are pushing for sex with kids, maybe your kids, anybody's kids...
And so is the Democratic Party USA
If we take the stats just for England, it indicates a rate at least as high as that for priestly abusers, but is probably much higher
But it doesn't, surely you see that. We don't even know how many patients were exploited beyond the bare minimum of one per doctor responding yes, and we can't tell how many doctors were exploiting at all, as sexual exploiters tend to do it more than once in their career.
But it doesn't, surely you see that. We don't even know how many patients were exploited beyond the bare minimum of one per doctor responding yes, and we can't tell how many doctors were exploiting at all, as sexual exploiters tend to do it more than once in their career.
Ok, but we're just looking for a raw number of perps.
Considering that these monsters never stop, even when they're caught and that most of them have multiple victims, it gets pretty high.
I'm just talking about the population of actual pervs.
I saw a stat while I was reading last night which indicated that 60% of women who go to MHW's report receiving sexual advances.
Interestingly, the one dude out in California who'd molested 35 kids that we know of was doing this for YEARS. He definitely had people covering for him.
If those laws don't exist
Well, you name an immutable law of god and we'll see if it exists as authored by god.
the Catholic Church suffers from the same ills as the society around her
Then its existence serves no purpose.
Look, if you have a reasonable argument, I'd be glad to entertain it
No, no, you are unclear on the concept here, Tancred. Evidently you enjoy spouting provocative and jawdroppingly-stupid assertions, while Substance McG (and the commenters) enjoy pointing at those assertions and laughing. So it is a win-win situation. It might spoil everything if the two of you swapped roles.
Considering that these monsters never stop, even when they're caught and that most of them have multiple victims, it gets pretty high.
Which makes the 25% stat that much more useless for your purpose: one doctor is a tiny percentage of all doctors, but if he sexually exploits multiple patients who over time move on to other doctors, you now have a potentially much larger percentage of innocent doctors treating at least one patient who'd been exploited by one single doctor. You just can't tell the number of doctors who originally did the exploiting based on the number of doctors who later treat an exploited patient.
In the studies I directly quoted above, which you can find by googling those quotes, and numerous others you'll find on those searches, clergy in all denominations are found to sexually exploit at a rate roughly twice that of other professions. One would therefore expect greater coverage in the press, but frankly I think the press loves sordid sex tales and bringing down the powerful no matter who they are, and certainly regardless of the sexual exploiter's opinion of abortion, otherwise I would know far less about about Bill Clinton's penis, Elliot Spitzer's proclivities, etc.
Post a Comment