The church and paedophilia...

[Dippers Donuts]

What is it about the Catholic church and paedophilia?

Whilst every religion seems to have its sexual abuse problems, the Catholic church sadly seems to specialise in child sex abuse. The latest revelations coming out of the US are terrible.

Is it the vow of celibacy? Dunno, maybe.

Personally I feel that the catholic church does seem to attract these men with a pre-disposition to child sex abuse. They seem to feel that if they deny their urgings and devote themselves to God then the problem will go away. Rather than seeking help in the first place.

Sadly it doesn't.

[Santos L Helper]

I think it's a big, and pretty outlandish call to suggest that men who enter the catholic priesthood are predominantly paedophiles.

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
I think it's a big, and pretty outlandish call to suggest that men who enter the catholic priesthood are predominantly paedophiles.

Santos, you seem to have misunderstood me; I am not saying that the men who enter the catholic priesthood are predominantly paedophiles at all. What I said is that the church does seem to attract these sick men, for whatever reason.

I think they probably enter the church for what they believe are the right reasons, ie a life of piety to cleanse themselves of such vile thoughts etc, instead of seeking help in the first place.

I know quite a few priests, all are men of great integrity and graciousness. Let me state for the record that the MAJORITY of catholic priests are fine, honourable citizens.

[skilts]

The only surprise about priests having sex with what are predominantly little boys, is that anyone should be surprised. These are people, who by definition, believe that there is another, more real, world out there somewhere in the ether.
Not usually indicative of someone who has a firm grip on what this world is all about.
I truly believe these people are able to justify their actions to themselves, because they see themselves as 'helping' their victims. Thanks, but please don't help any more.
There is a very short book, by a bloke called Friedrich Nietzsche called, "The Anti-Christ". It's available in most bookshops, in the classics section, or there are various sites online which have the text in its entirity. The book details the psychology which underlies the relationship between the priest and his flock. Nietzsche reckons priests are obsessed with the furtherance and maintenance of their power over the people in their flocks, to the extent where they, the priests, become indispensable. The priests exert this power to cover up how utterly useless they really are. They want to cover up their uselessness not only to others, but especially to themselves.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that some people are just pudenda.

[Dippers Donuts]

Totally disagree with you there skilts.

Apart from your view of religion, which is debatable and your view only, I don't believe these priests believe they are 'helping' their victims and thus are able to justify their actions. I have no doubt they know what they are doing is wrong, they sadly cannot help themselves. The church needs to have a close look at their training of these people, too much bible study and not enough psychological profiling to weed out the bad eggs before they even become priests.

As for Nietzsche, inspired Hitler and nazism didn't he? Nuff said.

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Totally disagree with you there skilts.

Apart from your view of religion, which is debatable and your view only, I don't believe these priests believe they are 'helping' their victims and thus are able to justify their actions. I have no doubt they know what they are doing is wrong, they sadly cannot help themselves. The church needs to have a close look at their training of these people, too much bible study and not enough psychological profiling to weed out the bad eggs before they even become priests.

As for Nietzsche, inspired Hitler and nazism didn't he? Nuff said.

Dipper, one could also say, 'as for The Bible, inspired the spanish inquisition didn't it?' Nuff said.

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


Dipper, one could also say, 'as for The Bible, inspired the spanish inquisition didn't it?' Nuff said.

Show me where in the bible it recommends inquisitions are to be used?

What's wrong with a couple of thousand heretics being roasted on the spit btw?;)

Very overrated the Spanish Inquisition IMO.

[Bloodstained Angel]

would have made great TV ....

bit like one of those bizarre Japanese gameshows.

cheers

[skilts]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Totally disagree with you there skilts.

Apart from your view of religion, which is debatable and your view only, I don't believe these priests believe they are 'helping' their victims and thus are able to justify their actions. I have no doubt they know what they are doing is wrong, they sadly cannot help themselves. The church needs to have a close look at their training of these people, too much bible study and not enough psychological profiling to weed out the bad eggs before they even become priests.

As for Nietzsche, inspired Hitler and nazism didn't he? Nuff said.

What a relief that you disagree with me. From your response, it seems you disagree with my views about the nature of religion. It may help me in formulating a reply if you were able to tell me which specific aspect of my take on religion you find most objectionable. In fact, I wasn't trying to promote anyone else's view on religion and I plead guilty as charged to putting forward my own views, and not those of someone else.
The thrust of what I wrote was that these 'people' are so basically flawed in their thinking that they have delusions at every level of their existence. This includes their thinking about the nature of their existence. From what you wrote, it appears you endorse these views. Nuff said, about that anyway, until you can be more specific in your objections about my views on religion.
By the way, in any reply you may post, if you choose to do so, please don't mention anything about your religious beliefs. Your beliefs are of no interest to me. Nor should they be of overarching interest to you. Beliefs are what keep your mind occupied, until you find out what is really going on.
What you seem to be suggesting, in a roundabout way, is that these 'people' are victims themselves. Candidates suitable for treatment or assessment, I think you said. By psychologists, I think you said. Glad you brought up psychologists. These are another example of bloodsucking wastes of space. At least the priests have the excuse provided by me, that they are delusional. These mothers like to think of themselves as 'scientists'. I laugh at their absurdity. They think they can know what it is to be a tree, or put another way, they assert that they can know what it is to be another human being.
You seem to be searching for reasons for why the catholics are disproportionately involved in interfering with young children. Do I detect a hint of unstated self interest here? Are you of a denomination other than catholic? Not that I would want to be seen to be sticking up for catholics, so to speak.
Finally, I am fascinated to know whereabouts in the writings of Nietzsche you found an endorsement or promulgation of Nazism. Paragraph numbers and the name of the volume quoted should suffice.

[BrisGirl]

I do believe the Catholic Church invented the 'confession' and the 'confession room'.

Instead of the room being dark along with the comfort anonmity, the room should be full of mirrors and bright lights.

The Church harbours those types of people on the simple grounds that once they confess, they walk away with a clear conscience.

[NYPomme]

Nice one, Skilts - that ought to have done it ;)

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by skilts
What a relief that you disagree with me. From your response, it seems you disagree with my views about the nature of religion. It may help me in formulating a reply if you were able to tell me which specific aspect of my take on religion you find most objectionable.
Happy to provide you with relief, you seem to need it. I'm not sure how you drew the conclusion that I find your views on religion objectionable; debatable yes, objectonable, to some perhaps, personally I don't care. We were discussing priests, not religion. There is a difference.

In fact, I wasn't trying to promote anyone else's view on religion and I plead guilty as charged to putting forward my own views, and not those of someone else. Sure, go your hardest.

The thrust of what I wrote was that these 'people' are so basically flawed in their thinking that they have delusions at every level of their existence. This includes their thinking about the nature of their existence. From what you wrote, it appears you endorse these views. And two and two somehow equals five...Sure they're deluded, they're mentally ill. No question about that. How it appears that I endorse these 'views' is bizarre to say the least. I don't. Got it?

Nuff said, about that anyway, until you can be more specific in your objections about my views on religion.
By the way, in any reply you may post, if you choose to do so, please don't mention anything about your religious beliefs. Your beliefs are of no interest to me. Nor should they be of overarching interest to you. Beliefs are what keep your mind occupied, until you find out what is really going on. Sure thing, whatever. Trust me, your beliefs are of no consequence to me. Nice cliche to conclude, another nihilist by the sound of it...
What you seem to be suggesting, in a roundabout way, is that these 'people' are victims themselves. Candidates suitable for treatment or assessment, I think you said. By psychologists, I think you said. Glad you brought up psychologists. These are another example of bloodsucking wastes of space. At least the priests have the excuse provided by me, that they are delusional. These mothers like to think of themselves as 'scientists'. I laugh at their absurdity. They think they can know what it is to be a tree, or put another way, they assert that they can know what it is to be another human being. Nice rant about psychologists. I can only conclude you have had a bad experience with them to colour your thinking so much.
You seem to be searching for reasons for why the catholics are disproportionately involved in interfering with young children. Do I detect a hint of unstated self interest here? Are you of a denomination other than catholic? Not that I would want to be seen to be sticking up for catholics, so to speak.Nope, not searching at all, consider it musing.No self interest either. Consider me a lapsed catholic if you will. I certainly don't lie in bed at night agonising about night.
Finally, I am fascinated to know whereabouts in the writings of Nietzsche you found an endorsement or promulgation of Nazism. Paragraph numbers and the name of the volume quoted should suffice. Any amateur historian can tell you that Hitler gained much inspiration from the anti-christianity, anti jew beliefs of Nietzsche. His family were known sympathisers/supporters of Nazism.

NY Pomme: That ought to do it? Clown.

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts

Any amateur historian can tell you that Hitler gained much inspiration from the anti-christianity, anti jew beliefs of Nietzsche. His family were known sympathisers/supporters of Nazism.

NY Pomme: That ought to do it? Clown.

With respect - not entirely sure you should be going down this route....

In point of fact - you contend that Hitler drew his inspiration from Nietzsche - implying to the exclusion of many, many other sources - you will find that there were a number of stimuli. eg. german myth (parsifal...wagnerian themes), 19thC german anti-semetism (common in Germany - believe it or not - not plucked from the ether by Nietzsche), his youthful experiences in Vienna - during the First World War, crack-pot scientific theories regarding race. the list goes on .........UNLIKE ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHICH DRAWS ITS INSPIRATION FROM ONE BOOK!

(He did draw inspiration from Nietzsche's 'will to power' theory - however drew erroneous conclusions - which I believe are widely regarded as inconsistent with Nietsche's writings. Nietzsche's reputation did suffer after his daughter setup right-wing commune in South America - however this was his daughter - and I think it was very much a case of the name 'sticking')

If you need any help - I can recommend a couple of decent books on 1) Adolf Hitler and 2) Friedrich Nietzche...........for the amateur reader, of course.

In the meantime - pehaps you might wish to ppnder the following quotation:

'He [Nietzche] thought that Christians, as much as Jews, were responsible for the "slave morality" prevalent in the world; he was never an anti-Semite'.

W.Shirer 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' Ch.4 'Mind of Hitler and the Roots of the Third Reich p. 99-100

BTW: Please don't call me a clown - it pi$$e$ me off....there's a good chap!

:mad:

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by NYPomme


With respect - not entirely sure you should be going down this route....

In point of fact - you contend that Hitler drew his inspiration from Nietzsche - implying to the exclusion of many, many other sources - you will find that there were a number of stimuli. eg. german myth (parsifal...wagnerian themes), 19thC german anti-semetism (common in Germany - believe it or not - not plucked from the ether by Nietzsche), his youthful experiences in Vienna - during the First World War, crack-pot scientific theories regarding race. the list goes on .........UNLIKE ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHICH DRAWS ITS INSPIRATION FROM ONE BOOK!

(He did draw inspiration from Nietzsche's 'will to power' theory - however drew erroneous conclusions - which I believe are widely regarded as inconsistent with Nietsche's writings. Nietzsche's reputation did suffer after his daughter setup right-wing commune in South America - however this was his daughter - and I think it was very much a case of the name 'sticking')

If you need any help - I can recommend a couple of decent books on 1) Adolf Hitler and 2) Friedrich Nietzche...........for the amateur reader, of course.

In the meantime - pehaps you might wish to ppnder the following quotation:

'He [Nietzche] thought that Christians, as much as Jews, were responsible for the "slave morality" prevalent in the world; he was never an anti-Semite'.

W.Shirer 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' Ch.4 'Mind of Hitler and the Roots of the Third Reich p. 99-100

BTW: Please don't call me a clown - it pi$$e$ me off....there's a good chap!

:mad:

Where do I even imply Hitler had but the one source for his twisted ideology? Very strange. Nietzsche was one important source but there were obviously others.

I'm sure I could recommend to yourself a couple of books on Adolf and his ideology too. Big deal, there are literally thousands for the amateur reader like yourself.

Sorry about calling you a clown, sweetheart...

[skilts]

Dippers Donuts, what a pleasure to have discourse with someone whose views are so well argued that they find it unnecessary to indulge in name calling. Certainly lifts the tone of the discussion.
Having said that, let me just say this: My tirade against psychology is based on having studied the underLYING premise on which their so-called discipline is founded. This premise, at the risk of being repetetive, is that any one can know what it is to be a human being, other than themselves. I find this notion preposterous in the extreme.
Current research on the effectiveness of all forms of therapy, counselling and drug therapy shows that the effects of this treatment are no worse than if nothing had been done. The determinism inherent in their work militates against them thinking in terms of individuals. If a person doesn't fit into their pre-determined set of psychological categories, then, for psychologists, these people don't exist. You should ask these psychologists, psychotherapists, psychiatrists and other snake oil salesmen for their definition of, for instance, schizophrenia, or the meaning of their term, sociopath. For every one of these charlatans you ask, you will receive a different, mutually exclusive definition.
Yes, I do have a problem with these practitioners, and the way they play with people's lives. One of their number, a psychiatrist, destroyed a very good friend's life. My friend was in need of some psychological assistance, because he was suicidal when he was twenty years old. This embecilic psychiatrist prescribed my friend a raft of benzodiazepine and anti-depressant drugs, then spent the next sixteen years playing with this man's alleged chemical imbalance. Eventually, even this fool was forced to admit he had got it all horribly wrong and had done more harm than good. Would it be unkind to say that the psychiatrist's real interest in this patient was the $190 per session he was able to rip off from the government? I don't think so. Because no-one had ever withdrawn from these drugs after such a lengthy addiction, this is where the industry's interest in my friend ceased. They had no answer.
It was left to his circle of friends to support him over the next nine months while he tried to reclaim his life. For four months he slept on the living room floor in my apartment, mainly because he couldn't stand to be alone. We would sit up 'til 4 and 5 in the morning coming to terms with withdrawals. Having experienced this withdrawal, he and I both laugh at those users of heroin who think they have an addiction. It takes a maximum of three days to withdraw from heroin. After nine months of withdrawal. my mate started to re-experience his life, as a six year old, then as a five year old, and so on. He wasn't just getting flashbacks, he was living the life of a child. What the industry didn't, and still doesn't understand, is that sometimes it is better to do nothing, while making sure the people who are disturbed can't harm themselves. But that would mean they wouldn't get paid and they would end up being as irrelevant as priests. Freud was wrong.
Your emphasis on the catholic church in the way you started this thread made me think there was some dark secret which prompted you to post it. It appears the secret is now out. You did indeed have a self interest at the heart of what you wrote. Interesting that it is almost always the catholics who call themselves 'lapsed'. A bit of self-laceration is good for the soul. Implicit in the word 'lapsed', is the notion of failure. Is that how you see yourself?
If you wished to discuss priests, rather than religion, why did you proffer in you reply, that my views on religion were what you were wanting to argue? You then choose not to argue my views on religion. Did you mean that my views on religion are debatable to everyone but yourself?
Finally, it appears you have not taken the opportunity to actually read any Nietzsche. Let me guess, you did Philosophy 101 at a traditional university, where the emphasis is on accumulating what can said with certainty. Because their only interest was in things to do with self-referential logic, they were able to convince you that anyone who didn't embrace this view was against you, wrong and at the very least a Nazi.
Another view of philosophy is to reduce to a very short list the things which can be said with certainty. For instance, I would love to hear your arguments against the notion that the only thing we can KNOW, is what it is to be a human being. Why would it matter if this WERE true? Not much, I think.
Your use of the word 'nihilism' displays the quality of thinking of which you are capable. If nationalism is the last resort of the scoundrel, the use of this word, in the perjorative sense in which you use it, is invariably indicative of someone who refuses to open their mind to other world views. The habit you developed when your catholicism was unlapsed has come back to bite you. This habit is an acceptance that one must think within constraints imposed by others. Become a follower, it's so much easier not to ever have to think for yourself.
Tedious as this may be for those who have read Nietzsche, I will detail why he could not possibly be construed as a pre-cursor of Nazism.
1) He was vehemently opposed to nationalism, especially the German variety. In fact he thought all national borders in Europe should be abolished. Don't suppose that will ever happen, but if it did, might I suggest we call it the European Union? No it wouldn't work.
2) He railed against the incipient anti-semitism he found in Germany and elsewhere. The problem Nietzsche had with the Jews was not the people, but rather their religion. He felt they had botched the whole thing in about 900 B.C. when they were having a hard time with drought. Instead of changing gods the Jews changed the one they already had and gave the god different qualities. He still thought that the lie that is the bible was the greatest lie ever invented and that it was so important for so many people, because we all need lies to help us live. Otherwise we wouldn't bother.
3) His problem with the christians was similar. He found the New Testament to be a travesty. Paul's efforts in setting himself up as the expert on all things to do with Jesus precluded any other views surfacing. It was Paul who set the scene for the establishment of an institution that is now called the church.This watered down version of Judaism provided us with the disaster which is most of western thought currently.
4) The central method he proposed to live an ethical life was for everyone to always re-value all values. Never take thoughts already thought as being inviolable. Not any easy life to live, but certainly not nihilism. We create our own values, then re-create them. To be an adherent of Nazism would be anathema to anyone who thought in this way.

He saw the priests as parasites who kept their flocks in a state of constant fear. Fear of death, fear of sex and fear of people who were stronger than them, who didn't require the promise of another life. He found the notion of christianity's that we must sublimate and prostrate ourselves before god to be anti-human and a putrid misunderstanding of our being. You also are deluded if you can make no connection between this thinking and the use and abuse of children, for their own ends, by the clergy.

NYPomme, maybe between us we could assist people to think outside the restrictive envelope which is common sense, but I really don't hold out much hope.

[Dippers Donuts]

Skilts, you have provided enough material there for a thesis.
It may seem impertinent to say I found myself chuckling whilst reading parts of your post. It would be even more impertinent perhaps to detail fully during which parts of your post I was chuckling, so I won't.

So, I was correct regarding your blinkered attitude to psychologists. Interesting. Current treatments in psychology may be 'no worse than if nothing had been done', the point is of course in many cases, these treatments have shown positive results, much more so than if nothing had been done. I suppose for you to accept this would mean an admittance to a mainstream, 'herd' belief. By the way, I asked two psychologists today for their (independent) definition of schizophrenia. Their responses were identical. The great pyschology swindle that you seem to think is 'out there' would I'm sure be well and truly exposed by now if it existed.

Your emphasis on the catholic church in the way you started this thread made me think there was some dark secret which prompted you to post it. It appears the secret is now out. Oh no! My secret is out!! I have to admit, this is one of the parts where I chuckled...Please stop with the navel gazing, the thread I originally posted was no more or less a discussion starter. This is an internet discussion board.. this is an internet discussion thread...ok?
You did indeed have a self interest at the heart of what you wrote. Interesting that it is almost always the catholics who call themselves 'lapsed'. A bit of self-laceration is good for the soul. Implicit in the word 'lapsed', is the notion of failure. Is that how you see yourself? This too evinced a laugh, I am sorry to appear so disrepectful. As a member of the doleful herd, yes yes I have failed to be an ubermensch. Mea Culpa. I'd better sell the chalet to fully convince myself of my failure...
Finally, it appears you have not taken the opportunity to actually read any Nietzsche. Let me guess, you did Philosophy 101 at a traditional university, where the emphasis is on accumulating what can said with certainty. Against seemingly insurmountable odds (mainly boredom), I have struggled through some of Freddies writing. Thus spake whatsisname, a bio or two. No, I didn't study philosophy at uni, like Social Work I left that to the tree huggers (too busy with more mercantile educational pursuits at university). Suffice to say, with what I have read of him I deserve a citation for persistence against the odds.

As for your reasons why Nietzsche cannot be regarded as one of the fathers of Nazism, there are just as many reasons one could list as to why he can be regarded as a true author of Nazism. He could be erratic with his utterances, to say the least. I suppose it comes down to when the clap he contracted as a young man started addling his brain (just before Thus Spoke Zarathustra if you ask me...) Suffice to say Hitler and Goebbels liked his 'superman' concept of riding roughshod over the herd and imposing one's will on the them. That and Nietzsche's attacking of democracy struck a chord with Hitler who insisted that every member of the german army carry a copy of "Thus spoke.." in their knapsack. I could go on, but I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Finally, yes, perhaps yourself and NYPomme could cobble together some ideas for our entertainment, I'm sure they would be twice as interesting.

[skilts]

Dippers, so pleased to have provided you with entertainment. It seems you did an irony check on parts of what I wrote. In all seriousness, Zarathustra is really not representative of Nietzsche's philosophy, and I would urge you to take my advice and read 'The Anti-Christ'. If you find his prose too turgid I will understand.
Regardless of your take on his philosophy, Nietzsche is still one of the most interesting writers since Shakespeare.
Just a hint about reading him. Don't try to understand all of the detail as you go, just read it and let the thoughts wash over you. If you choose not to do this, I will understand. Someone as obviously intelligent as you can become even moreso, but that may be just my possibly inflated opinion of Nietzsche at work.

P.S. It worries me deeply that you know two psychologists.

[NYPomme]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts


Where do I even imply Hitler had but the one source for his twisted ideology? Very strange. Nietzsche was one important source but there were obviously others.

I'm sure I could recommend to yourself a couple of books on Adolf and his ideology too. Big deal, there are literally thousands for the amateur reader like yourself.

Sorry about calling you a clown, sweetheart...

You're slipping........:rolleyes:

ps. Also sprach..= Thus spake....

Say, when do we start to discuss Marx's view of religion?....:D

[Dippers Donuts]

Originally posted by skilts
Dippers, so pleased to have provided you with entertainment. It seems you did an irony check on parts of what I wrote. In all seriousness, Zarathustra is really not representative of Nietzsche's philosophy, and I would urge you to take my advice and read 'The Anti-Christ'. If you find his prose too turgid I will understand.
Regardless of your take on his philosophy, Nietzsche is still one of the most interesting writers since Shakespeare.
Just a hint about reading him. Don't try to understand all of the detail as you go, just read it and let the thoughts wash over you. If you choose not to do this, I will understand. Someone as obviously intelligent as you can become even moreso, but that may be just my possibly inflated opinion of Nietzsche at work.

P.S. It worries me deeply that you know two psychologists.

Skilts, perhaps I have been a little harsh on Nietzshe. I will defer to your greater knowledge/appreciation of him and will, as recommended, give "The Anti Christ" a try.

PS: The Psychologist anecdote is a true one; I had dinner with two of them a couple of nights ago and did indeed ask them (independently) for a definition of schizophrenia. What I didn't say was that they are a husband and wife team, so they could well have colluded on a definition at some previous point!!

[skilts]

To read it for free, punch in "The Nietzsche Channel" on Google or Yahoo.

[mentalgrind]

I'm just giong to add my view-

The main reason I think, is with the fact tha once they join the priesthood they are not allowed to have sex at all and they are obviously very sexually frustrated and they see kids as an easy target to relieve that frustration.

not very intelligent I know, but it is the only conclusion I can come too.

[Fat Red]

NYPomme, spake and spoke mean the same, spake being an archaic version.

My German is pretty bad. Is Also sprach archaic German?

Even if it is there is nothing wrong with translating as spoke rather than spake IMHO.

[Fat Red]

Skilts, can I go back to where you started.

You seem to be saying,

1. Priests are delusional.
2. They exercise and abuse power over their congregations.
3. Therefore it's no surprise that they sexually abuse minors.

For the sake of the argument, I concede 1 and 2. But how do you get to 3 from there?

[Porthos]

Originally posted by Dippers Donuts
Show me where in the bible it recommends inquisitions are to be used?Show me where in the works of Nietzsche it says to kill jews by means of concentration camps.

[skilts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Skilts, can I go back to where you started.

You seem to be saying,

1. Priests are delusional.
2. They exercise and abuse power over their congregations.
3. Therefore it's no surprise that they sexually abuse minors.

For the sake of the argument, I concede 1 and 2. But how do you get to 3 from there?

If you accept 1. and 2., it's not too much of a leap to concede 3.

These people's self-appointed task is as moral arbiters. As interpreters of the bible and of the gospels they are supposed to provide their flock with a religious basis for their ethical and moral decision making. If you have no problem with people setting themselves up in this role, that's O.K.
For myself, if I were to depend on someone to assist me in ethical dilemmas, whom would I choose? Would it be someone who is worldly, has a grasp of the difficulties which face real people in real situations, without pre-judging any problem which might arise? Or would you select someone whose only resort is to an implacable belief in that with which they have been inculcated. Someone who positively discourages his followers from thinking for themselves, because there is only one way, his.

The priest's belief in another world is what gives him the power he has over those who follow him. His followers believe what he believes, and he is the dispenser of wisdom about the most important things in their lives, the promise of a better life, in this other world. If you buy this from the priest, doesn't this put the priest into a position of extraordinary power?

There are theories abroad that sex crimes are about power, not sex. I don't actually agree with this, as I think this statement displays a lack of knowledge about the way human's, especially men's, minds work. There doesn't have to be another reason than sex for sexual abuse. However, I think the situation of the priest is different. He thrives on, needs the power he has over his flock, otherwise he wouldn't be in the job. He gets a fix from the respect, fawning and deference he receives.

It would be an extraordinary person who would not be totally corrupted by this much power. The sex thing is merely an extention of what is his due in everyday life.

This is a very airy-fairy way of saying that men are capable of everything. Next time you hear of a sex crime, abduction, rape, sodomy, snowdropping, or bestiality, if you are male, examine whether at your innermost consciousness, there isn't a part of you which understands the mentality which makes these things possible.

These are very fragmented thoughts, cobbled together in a hurry. More of a stream of almost-consciousness. If I can I'll do some more thinking and get back to you. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

[Danni]

Not the sort of thread I needed to read this afternoon on 2 levels........

1) my families business is in private practice psychology.

and

2) I just spent the last 2 hours in an office with my mother, son and a priest.............doing the 'interview' thingy for my son to attend a school next year.

[M29]

Originally posted by Danni
I just spent the last 2 hours in an office with my mother, son and a priest.............doing the 'interview' thingy for my son to attend a school next year.

Why throw interview in ' ' 's?

[Danni]

cause that isn't really the right word for it..........couldn't think of the right one at the time............on reflection it is more like an interrogation along with some sort of psycho-analysis.

Not a nice experience...............just glad they offered him a place and I don't have to go thru it, or put him thru it, at any more schools.

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by skilts


If you accept 1. and 2., it's not too much of a leap to concede 3.

These people's self-appointed task is as moral arbiters. As interpreters of the bible and of the gospels they are supposed to provide their flock with a religious basis for their ethical and moral decision making. If you have no problem with people setting themselves up in this role, that's O.K.
For myself, if I were to depend on someone to assist me in ethical dilemmas, whom would I choose? Would it be someone who is worldly, has a grasp of the difficulties which face real people in real situations, without pre-judging any problem which might arise? Or would you select someone whose only resort is to an implacable belief in that with which they have been inculcated. Someone who positively discourages his followers from thinking for themselves, because there is only one way, his.

The priest's belief in another world is what gives him the power he has over those who follow him. His followers believe what he believes, and he is the dispenser of wisdom about the most important things in their lives, the promise of a better life, in this other world. If you buy this from the priest, doesn't this put the priest into a position of extraordinary power?

There are theories abroad that sex crimes are about power, not sex. I don't actually agree with this, as I think this statement displays a lack of knowledge about the way human's, especially men's, minds work. There doesn't have to be another reason than sex for sexual abuse. However, I think the situation of the priest is different. He thrives on, needs the power he has over his flock, otherwise he wouldn't be in the job. He gets a fix from the respect, fawning and deference he receives.

It would be an extraordinary person who would not be totally corrupted by this much power. The sex thing is merely an extention of what is his due in everyday life.

This is a very airy-fairy way of saying that men are capable of everything. Next time you hear of a sex crime, abduction, rape, sodomy, snowdropping, or bestiality, if you are male, examine whether at your innermost consciousness, there isn't a part of you which understands the mentality which makes these things possible.

These are very fragmented thoughts, cobbled together in a hurry. More of a stream of almost-consciousness. If I can I'll do some more thinking and get back to you. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Can I try and distil your thoughts first because I'm not sure I completely follow. (What is snowdropping btw?)

I agree that a common consequence of too much power will be an approach to sexuality which is inconsiderate of others, imposes the will of the powerful person and disregards taboos.

However I think that bestiality, to take an extreme example, will rarely be a consequence. How many times in history do you read about the voracious sexual appetites of powerful men, whether for women, men, girls, boys or any combination according to taste.

But not for animals...bestiality is not a subject I know much about but seems to me to be a manifestation of powerlessness not power. And the same applies to sexual contact with pre-pubescent children.

[skilts]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fat Red


Can I try and distil your thoughts first because I'm not sure I completely follow. (What is snowdropping btw?)

I agree that a common consequence of too much power will be an approach to sexuality which is inconsiderate of others, imposes the will of the powerful person and disregards taboos.

However I think that bestiality, to take an extreme example, will rarely be a consequence. How many times in history do you read about the voracious sexual appetites of powerful men, whether for women, men, girls, boys or any combination according to taste.

But not for animals...bestiality is not a subject I know much about but seems to me to be a manifestation of powerlessness not power. And the same applies to sexual contact with pre-pubescent children. [/QUOTE

'Snowdropping ' is the habit of stealing ladies' underwear from clothes lines.

I must admit you have me a little confused here Fat Red. I'll try my best to explain though. My reference to rape, bestiality, etc. was meant to convey the idea that no matter how repugnant we may find this behaviour in men, there is a part of us men which can recognise and understand the urges involved. This is not to say we are all potential rapists. We can recognise in these people's actions something which has maybe crossed our minds. We, unlike them, have not acted on these impulses, but we do understand the impetus behind it. It is our shared experience here which allows us to understand the way these people think and act. This is not to say we condone what is being done, merely that we understand it. The trick is not in NOT having these thoughts. This can't be helped. It seems the people who act out these fantasies aren't able to control the links between their thoughts and their behaviour. They go straight from the thought to action and damn the consequences. This is barbaric.

Bestiality would seem to me to be all about the power humans have over 'dumb' animals. If someone is doing it with a goat, I don't think he usually waits for permission. By definition, bestiality is selfish, on the part of the human involved. If bestiality or paedophilia are both about disparate levels of power, then there must be someone who is more empowered than the other. So it involves a surfeit of and a lack of power. In the case of the child being abused the power resides with the abuser, especially if that person is a priest or teacher.

It all comes down to understanding the human experience, in all of it's rich intricacy. It still surprises me that people were shocked by Port Arthur. and the events of Sept 11. If it can be done a human will do it. Only surprise is that it doesn't happen more often.

[Fat Red]

My concentration span is too short for this.

Anyway,

1. I acknowledge the impulses behind rape and sodomy, but don't find anywhere within myself urges toward snowdropping (what a strange name) and bestiality, or for that matter sex with pre-pubescent children.

2. I think the relationship between sex and power is a little more complex than you say. Pathological (a very subjective label I know) and fetishist sexuality is IMO more likely to be an expression of powerlessness: basically, males have sex with animals because they can't get it anywhere else.

On the other hand, extreme power is associated primarily with men having sex (how consensual being a moot point) with many women of fertile age.

To bring it back to priests, if they were so powerful, they should be having sex with women, not defenceless kids.

[Slax]

The problem with sex abuse case put forward by some members of society. Although some are real an equal number sadly are not. This has been proven particularly in the States as people try for compensation payouts.

As what is the exact definition of sexual abuse some people would have you believe that it is touching someone on their body other people it is making contact with their genital region or having a person make contact with their genital region.

There are so many grey areas inside sexual abuse cases it can sometimes be difficult to tell who is telling the truth or what the truth is. In the end all it does destroy lives of innocent people and revive bad memories but solves nothing.

The way to stop this is to follow the Anglican church in allowing married priests which I believe will happen after John Paul II dies.

[skilts]

Originally posted by Slax
The problem with sex abuse case put forward by some members of society. Although some are real an equal number sadly are not. This has been proven particularly in the States as people try for compensation payouts.
As what is the exact definition of sexual abuse some people would have you believe that it is touching someone on their body other people it is making contact with their genital region or having a person make contact with their genital region.
There are so many grey areas inside sexual abuse cases it can sometimes be difficult to tell who is telling the truth or what the truth is. In the end all it does destroy lives of innocent people and revive bad memories but solves nothing.
The way to stop this is to follow the Anglican church in allowing married priests which I believe will happen after John Paul II dies.

You have hit upon an interesting point here. It worries me that if someone is sexually abused, the only way to react, in the current climate, is to paint yourself as a 'victim'. This has the potential to exacerbate the pain, if it exists or not. Surely it is at least arguable that not everyone who is interfered with is devastated by it. This not to discount the suffering of people who are abused. Not a very popular idea, but it does bear thinking about.

You're probably right about conflicting stories and weak evidence. By definition, there are rarely witnesses to these occurances.

Your suggestion that priests be able to marry won't curry much favour with priests who are of a homosexual persuasion.

My fear is that things will become so bad that nobody will trust men to be with children, even their own.

[skilts]

Originally posted by Fat Red
My concentration span is too short for this.

Anyway,

1. I acknowledge the impulses behind rape and sodomy, but don't find anywhere within myself urges toward snowdropping (what a strange name) and bestiality, or for that matter sex with pre-pubescent children.

2. I think the relationship between sex and power is a little more complex than you say. Pathological (a very subjective label I know) and fetishist sexuality is IMO more likely to be an expression of powerlessness: basically, males have sex with animals because they can't get it anywhere else.

On the other hand, extreme power is associated primarily with men having sex (how consensual being a moot point) with many women of fertile age.

I wasn't suggesting you would find bestial and paedophilic tendencies inside yourself, Fat Red. I meant that when you hear of people who do these things, presumably being male, there would be a part of you which would UNDERSTAND the impulses. That is not to say that you share them. To put it bluntly, if you have ever experienced the drive to male orgasm, this is the territory in which you would find these impulses.

To bring it back to priests, if they were so powerful, they should be having sex with women, not defenceless kids.

Sheer bloody-mindedness of humans refutes the possibility of precluding them from doing anything. The drive to procreate is powerful, but it isn't the only one. Nobody I know has much understanding of fetishes and sexual predelictions. There is at the root of this sort of aberrant behaviour, an innate overweaning selfishness. "I'm going to get my jollies, even if you don't want me to." Also, "You may not be enjoying this, but that isn't going to stop me." A dead giveaway is the distanced look in the eye as they indulge themselves. Have seen this distant look in women's eyes as well.

P.S. Please excuse the wonky formatting, still getting the hang of these darn things. Computers that is.

[Dippers Donuts]

Oi!! This is my thread!!

How come it says Bloodstained Angel created it!!

[Jim Boy]

After having skimmed through this post (sorry Neistchze doesn't do it for me), I gather that the main idea seems to be that the power and influence that a priest has with his flock will more than the average person lead them to submit to tempatation and be more brazen in displaying their sexuality.

This may well be true, but it doesn't mean that by becoming a priest you are more likely to turn having an interest in paedophilia. But it would seem that the sort of person who may develop paedophilia obsessions are more likely to turn to the priesthood.

Why is this so? Well there probably is an element of joining for the young boy experience of it. But I suspect that a truer reason may lie in the development at a young age of the individual who will eventually turn to paedophilia. I really don't know much about why people become paedophiles, but it isn't just a case of sexual preference such as saying you're gay or straight. I think alot of paedophiles were abused at an early age themselves. Often in these cases it's the religious bodies that come to mop up the damage, a clear introducton for the person at risk to a life in preistdom. Also the stigma and utter social alienation of anyone who may be experiencing paedophlia desires prevents them from seeking appropraite social counselling and instead drives them into secrecy. Becoming a priest may sometimes be considered as an option for 'self-cure'. Thy will cleanse thy mind of all impure thoughts type approach. I believe there just aren't adequate social programs in existence to really get to these people who need help at an early stage. Instead they are left to rot and the result is, well not pleasant.

Also small bug-bear of mine, why would anyone ask a psychologist for a definition of schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is an illness, not some sort of psychological mumbo jumbo, it's an illness just like measles is an illness. It's treated by doctors called psychiatrists, not tafe college graduates.

Lastly anyone seen South Park's take on this topic, 'Red Hot Catholic Love'? It's a hoot;)

[skilts]

Will this thread ever become irrelevant? Let's hope so.

[Captain Sensible]

Originally posted by Jim Boy


Also small bug-bear of mine, why would anyone ask a psychologist for a definition of schizophrenia? Schizophrenia is an illness, not some sort of psychological mumbo jumbo, it's an illness just like measles is an illness. It's treated by doctors called psychiatrists, not tafe college graduates.





What about clinical psychologists?