Catholic Church child protection chief caught with 4,000 child porn pictures
88 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31503917]alright then. many and most, however, can be incredibly far removed from each other. what is many? is it most? can most be judged by many? depends on many.[/QUOTE]
TIME PARADOX!!!!
Slowly but surely
Church will cease to exist
[QUOTE=Mingebox;31494274]Ugh, he wasn't doing his job AT ALL! I hope he gets fired![/QUOTE]
this guy had and distributed child pornography
he should get fired
seems fair to me
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31503849]because this one, single man is representative of approximately one sixth of the world's population
ok
also might want to reconsider your relationship if you think less of your girlfriend for her faith - doesn't sound like a recipe for a loving, mutually-respectful bond.[/QUOTE]
no matter how many priests fuck little boys you always say it's one person
It's like anti pedophilia tunnel vision. Is that something you just get for being Catholic?
maan, teh Catholic Church needs to recruit teenagers with traditional porn addictions to set a good example for them..
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31504124]
no matter how many priests fuck little boys you always say it's one person
It's like anti pedophilia tunnel vision. Is that something you just get for being Catholic?[/QUOTE]
no matter the magnitude of what you're claiming you always shoot it off without any sort of proof
It's like anti reality tunnel vision. Is that something you get just for being angry?
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31504194]no matter the magnitude of what you're claiming you always shoot it off without any sort of proof
It's like anti reality tunnel vision. Is that something you get just for being angry?[/QUOTE]
. . .What? The magnitude of what I'm claiming? What exactly am I claiming that's so ridiculous?
I know you're trying to be clever, but I'm just confused.
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
Are you trying to say that there's no evidence that thousands of priests have been accused of child molestation? Because that's not really debatable.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31504227]. . .What? The magnitude of what I'm claiming? What exactly am I claiming that's so ridiculous?
I know you're trying to be clever, but I'm just confused.
[editline]3rd August 2011[/editline]
Are you trying to say that there's no evidence that thousands of priests have been accused of child molestation? Because that's not really debatable.[/QUOTE]
you're trying to imply that the catholic church is riddled with child sex offences, when you have absolutely no evidence to say so. that's the magnitude - slightly embarrassing that you can't understand what you're saying.
fast facts:
1. "accused" != "did"
2. child sex offences are committed by a small minority of disturbed individuals. nothing more.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31504318]you're trying to imply that the catholic church is riddled with child sex offences, when you have absolutely no evidence to say so. that's the magnitude - slightly embarrassing that you can't understand what you're saying.
fast facts:
1. "accused" != "did"
2. child sex offences are committed by a small minority of disturbed individuals. nothing more.[/QUOTE]
Alright, you want to play, here are some slow facts for you.
[quote]The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.
The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.
The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:
Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. [B]In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. [U]Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated;[/U] 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.[/B]
More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.
[B]The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:[/B]
56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[15]
The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[15]
Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[15]
Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[15]
[/quote]
I know it's not as catchy or as easy to digest as "fast facts", but the advantage that I have is that my facts are [I]right.[/I]
>Reads title and sees "Child porn"
>Thinks "Oh no, that's horrible!"
>Sees "Catholic Church"
thisissofuckingunsurprising.png
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31504374]Alright, you want to play, here are some slow facts for you.
I know it's not as catchy or as easy to digest as "fast facts", but the advantage that I have is that my facts are [I]right.[/I][/QUOTE]
Oh, you're using the John Jay report, paid for by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops? You'll find this interesting, then:
[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html[/url]
[QUOTE]The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.
Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. [b]But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue.[/b][/QUOTE]
Translation: stats are consistent with society, and the Catholic Church doesn't have a higher per-capita rate of pedophilia than any other group.
E: Ergo - your facts are right; so are mine.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31504416]Oh, you're using the John Jay report, paid for by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops? You'll find this interesting, then:
[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/04/07/mean-men.html[/url]
Translation: stats are consistent with society, and the Catholic Church doesn't have a higher per-capita rate of pedophilia than any other group.[/QUOTE]
And here's the problem, which the article you posted so kindly pointed out for me:
[quote]Another reason is that the church has historically been bad at punishing (or preventing) molesters, so that many cases might come to light when just one priest is finally exposed. A single predator priest with ongoing access to children might be responsible for an immense raft of abuse cases. (Marie Fortune of the Faith Trust Institute, which focuses on clerical-abuse issues, says Roman Catholics tend "to have many more schools and other programs that involve children." "Plenty of other congregations have these problems, for instance, if they have a youth ministry.") That helps explain the 200 children who were abused at a school for the deaf. It didn't happen because the school was full of rapists; it happened because one man was never stopped. Overall, the John Jay study found that 149 priests were responsible for more than 25,000 cases of abuse over the 52-year period studied.[/quote]
And I'm glad that you accept that I was right in saying that thousands of priests have been accused of child molestation, making your original point against me completely nonsensical.
[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;31502255]interesting theory, but conjecture none the less. i take a few issues with that:
- you're suggesting that you're either into women, or you're probably (note: probably, taken from "large number) a pedophile.
- only men who aren't interested in women become priests. that's simply not true. people don't become priests because they want a profession where they can't have sex (wut), they become a priest because they want to serve god. the idea of celibacy comes from being outside of marriage; hence, in a catholic perspective (which you have to take it in because we're talking about the catholic church), you have to consider marriage. the idea of the priesthood is that you're married to the church, so to speak. hence, you can't get married to a woman, hence you can't have sex. this is called putting your vocation BEFORE sexual desire, not REPLACING it.
hence, i flatly disagree with you, unless you've got some sort of evidence.[/QUOTE]
Many humans see it in their self interest to reproduce, so by joining the church they cannot do so. Whereas pedophiles/homosexuals/asexuals/etc are not too bothered about creating offspring, so being that they won't have sex anyways they are more likely to join the church.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31504730]Many humans see it in their self interest to reproduce, so by joining the church they cannot do so. Whereas pedophiles/homosexuals/asexuals/etc are not too bothered about creating offspring, so being that they won't have sex anyways they are more likely to join the church.[/QUOTE]
Somehow I doubt many people joined the Catholic church and trained to become a priest with the mindset of "Well I want to fuck children anyway, so why not?"
Guys he is the child protection chief, I'm sure there is a rational explanation to why he had the images, most likely he took them off the real culprits to protect the children :smile:
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31504830]Somehow I doubt many people joined the Catholic church and trained to become a priest with the mindset of "Well I want to fuck children anyway, so why not?"[/QUOTE]
Its more a case, well I won't have sex with a woman or get married. Oh well I may as well join the church.
god encourages perversion, BAN RELIGION
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;31511408]god encourages perversion, BAN RELIGION[/QUOTE]
Religion is fine, Organized religion is a danger to all of us.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;31490496]Why are there so many paedophiles in the catholic church? It's just plain bizarre[/QUOTE]
it's apparently easier to get a child to obey your commands when you have an "omnipresent force" that can "punish them" on your side.
[QUOTE=Canned Induvidual;31490063]I wonder what the pope shall do about this[/QUOTE]
Ban condoms
I can't even make a joke about these type of things any more. It's just getting old.
That's quite a tongue twister.
How about "Catholic Church child caring chief caught carrying child corrupting contraband."
We have the same last name. Fuck...
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;31521939]We have the same last name. Fuck...[/QUOTE]
A lot of people have that last name. It isn't that big a deal.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31505757]Its more a case, well I won't have sex with a woman or get married. Oh well I may as well join the church.[/QUOTE]
and I completely disagree with that being the driving motivation of men to join the priesthood. aside from the fact many experience a vocational calling, there's actually an alternative for men who don't want to marry/have sex - it's called not joining the church. it's not like you can't do any of those things without joining the church, hence i can't see a reason why men who felt that way would thus join the church when they can live perfectly normal lives without it.
finally, i'd like to see some proof that most men who join the church: a) have no sexual attraction towards women and b) have that as their driving reason to join the church. in fact, the more i think about (b), the less sense it seems to make. just because i'm not A doesn't mean I would join B which disallows A, given that whether or not i participate in A is under my control, not B's. say, if i was a non-catholic in Northern Ireland a few decades ago, i wouldn't have been rushing out to join the protestant militias which banned all catholics.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;31504543]And here's the problem, which the article you posted so kindly pointed out for me:
And I'm glad that you accept that I was right in saying that thousands of priests have been accused of child molestation, making your original point against me completely nonsensical.[/QUOTE]
yes, that's a problem.
and i never contested your claim of thousands of priests being accused of child molestation. i contested your inference that this was a gigantic, dis-proportionate number, which i then proved, making my original point against you completely valid.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;31489940]The irony is absolutely bananas.[/QUOTE]
Well, it makes a twisted kind of sense for someone with those sort of... predilections to go into something like Child Protection, and even more so through an organisation like a Church. Personally I'd thrust the job on someone who absolutely doesn't want it (A bit like power, don't give it to someone who wants it)
It's the Catholic Church what were you expecting.
[QUOTE=Rex McCoolguy;31527142]It's the Catholic Church what were you expecting.[/QUOTE]
A number greater than 4000.
[QUOTE=Rex McCoolguy;31527142]It's the Catholic Church what were you expecting.[/QUOTE]
I was expecting several little boys in his cellar.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.