Post BF Upgrade Feedback - Click Here

Remove this Banner Ad

Religion Pell Guilty!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Colonial
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Galaxie77 said:
Extremely lax catholic
More a cultural one......
There are bigger enemies, go after those ffs.
Click to expand...
The RC investigated all religious organizations, sporting clubs, dance schools, homes etc. Who else is left?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Richard Pryor said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/world/australia/australia-sexual-abuse-children.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1666566


This comes out as 11 accused parties per year for the Anglicans, 53 per year for the Catholics, which is a fairly significant difference (although of course there are likely numerous other factors).

The most likely mitigating factor is size difference, as of now it appears the Anglican Church has around 3 million members and the Catholic Church is about 5.4 million. Assuming a similar size difference between the two going back to the 80's this does not, in and of itself, account for the Catholic Church's larger abuse problem.
Click to expand...

In addition:

During the Royal Commission into institutional child abuse, the ABC breathlessly reported that 60% of child abuse in a religious institution took place within the Catholic Church. Shocking! How disgusting! What a hive of degenerates! Except that by not telling the whole story, the ABC was saying something completely untrue. What was left out was that during the time under investigation, 80% of children who attended a religious school or were resident in a religious institution, were students in or resident in a Catholic institution. The twenty percent of students/residents in institutions run by other religious groups accounted for 40% of the total abuse reported. In other words, a student in a non-Catholic religious school was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a student in a Catholic school.


In fact, Catholic clergy have lower rates of abuse than clergy of other religions or denominations (some groups, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have far higher reported rates of abuse than any mainstream denomination). In turn, clergy of other denominations have lower rates of abuse than occur in secular community and sports groups and public schools (the Boy Scouts in the US has just filed for bankruptcy because it cannot keep up with payouts for abuse claims). And abuse in any church, school or community group is far outstripped by abuse in the home, where it has been estimated 90% of abuse occurs. As Bettina Arndt noted


It’s total hypocrisy. We jump up and down in the Royal Commission about abuse of people in institutions. We don’t give a stuff about the major risk for children which is, you know, children in single parent families being abused by boyfriends passing in and out of those families … There are a whole lot of areas [of sexual child abuse] we don’t discuss because they are not politically correct. Obviously, we’re trying to get the Catholic Church and attack churches.


The Royal Commission observed there had been 2504 incidents of alleged child sexual abuse in the Uniting Church between its inauguration in 1977 and 2017. This compares with 4445 claims of abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015. Some parts of the media pounced on this figure as again proving the disproportionate amount of abuse that occurred within the Catholic Church. But two other factors need to be considered: the Commission did not consider any abuse claims made against the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches during the 27 year period from 1950 to 1977. Most abuse claims in the Catholic Church occurred in the 1970s. This may also have been the case in other denominations. But whether so or not, this is 27 years in which abuse in the Catholic Church was considered and counted, but not in other denominations. In addition, media reports generally failed to note that the Catholic Church has five times as many members as the Uniting Church. On the Commission’s own figures, a child attending the Uniting Church was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a child attending the Catholic Church.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/02/catholics-sex-and-cardinal-pell/
 
Soft Downhill Skier said:
What do you mean unusual sexuality?
Click to expand...

It really should be self evident and I suspect this is a stitch up type question.

Unusual sexuality in the 1950s/60s, which is when the recruiting of the offending priests and brothers largely occurred was any sexuality that wasn't heterosexuality.
 
GuruJane said:
In addition:

During the Royal Commission into institutional child abuse, the ABC breathlessly reported that 60% of child abuse in a religious institution took place within the Catholic Church. Shocking! How disgusting! What a hive of degenerates! Except that by not telling the whole story, the ABC was saying something completely untrue. What was left out was that during the time under investigation, 80% of children who attended a religious school or were resident in a religious institution, were students in or resident in a Catholic institution. The twenty percent of students/residents in institutions run by other religious groups accounted for 40% of the total abuse reported. In other words, a student in a non-Catholic religious school was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a student in a Catholic school.


In fact, Catholic clergy have lower rates of abuse than clergy of other religions or denominations (some groups, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have far higher reported rates of abuse than any mainstream denomination). In turn, clergy of other denominations have lower rates of abuse than occur in secular community and sports groups and public schools (the Boy Scouts in the US has just filed for bankruptcy because it cannot keep up with payouts for abuse claims). And abuse in any church, school or community group is far outstripped by abuse in the home, where it has been estimated 90% of abuse occurs. As Bettina Arndt noted


It’s total hypocrisy. We jump up and down in the Royal Commission about abuse of people in institutions. We don’t give a stuff about the major risk for children which is, you know, children in single parent families being abused by boyfriends passing in and out of those families … There are a whole lot of areas [of sexual child abuse] we don’t discuss because they are not politically correct. Obviously, we’re trying to get the Catholic Church and attack churches.


The Royal Commission observed there had been 2504 incidents of alleged child sexual abuse in the Uniting Church between its inauguration in 1977 and 2017. This compares with 4445 claims of abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2015. Some parts of the media pounced on this figure as again proving the disproportionate amount of abuse that occurred within the Catholic Church. But two other factors need to be considered: the Commission did not consider any abuse claims made against the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches during the 27 year period from 1950 to 1977. Most abuse claims in the Catholic Church occurred in the 1970s. This may also have been the case in other denominations. But whether so or not, this is 27 years in which abuse in the Catholic Church was considered and counted, but not in other denominations. In addition, media reports generally failed to note that the Catholic Church has five times as many members as the Uniting Church. On the Commission’s own figures, a child attending the Uniting Church was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a child attending the Catholic Church.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/02/catholics-sex-and-cardinal-pell/
Click to expand...
The revulsion towards the Catholic Church's pederasty is due to the high level of orchestrated cover up.
 
its free real estate said:
The revulsion towards the Catholic Church's pederasty is due to the high level of orchestrated cover up.
Click to expand...
It's distinct in that it is the only Church that is literally able to place people above the law. Cases in point, Pope Benedict using diplomatic immunity to avoid answering for his actions as Ratzinger in Texas & Pell being summoned to the Vatican and put into a position of diplomatic immunity in 2014 (around the time shit was hitting the fan).
 
Richard Pryor said:
It's distinct in that it is the only Church that is literally able to place people above the law. Cases in point, Pope Benedict using diplomatic immunity to avoid answering for his actions as Ratzinger in Texas & Pell being summoned to the Vatican and put into a position of diplomatic immunity in 2014 (around the time shit was hitting the fan).
Click to expand...
You read stories about guys like Larry Nasser or that Sandusky bloke and others, while rare it’s not exactly confined to any church, organisation, or group of people. The Catholic Church’s own special status and supposed piety makes their crimes seem all the more egregious.
 
[QUOTE="Richard Pryor, post: 59748675, member:
The most likely mitigating factor is size difference [/QUOTE]

Ah yes. So many aspects of life come down to this.
 
BruceFromBalnarring said:
Unusual sexuality in the 1950s/60s, which is when the recruiting of the offending priests and brothers largely occurred was any sexuality that wasn't heterosexuality.
Click to expand...

You mean those men who displayed asexual tendencies? Only jarkin'.

You've just missed hitting the nail squarely on the head as to the major, underlying catalyst for there being so many paedophile pastors, in the Catholic church in particular. Most discussion on the issue of celibacy revolves around the assertion that priests rape their flock because of frustration born out of enforced celibacy.

Some mention the pursuit and misuse of the almost unlimited power priests hold over devotees. They see that there seems to be a power imbalance in the relationship between the priest class and the everyday punters in the church. I think this interpretation has some merit. If this interpretation is accurate, it is a poor reflection on the reason paedophile priests joined the various orders all those years ago. Had they a brain at all (despite what I think of them, most were/are not drongos, and attained a significant level of education) they must have been aware of the disproportionate power they held, which was so open to abuse. Despite them having any such knowledge about the power they wielded, they went right ahead and exploited it. Unforgivable.

In my not-so-humble-opinion, there lies at the root of the celibacy problem an even more seminal issue than either of the above interpretations. My thought is that the church has failed monumentally in its recruitment policies. To have as a condition of employment that the applicant must never have sex for the rest of their lives seems to me to be a condition aimed solely at those who are prepared to accept such a perverse lifestyle. The church recruited those who were prepared to embrace such a disgusting, inhuman perversion, because of what they saw as a need for it to have complete control over its employees. The sensible youth of that age would never agree to such restrictions on their lives, forever.

Given that fifty years ago, a lot, if not most, of the applicants were aged around 15/16 years, this could/should mean that a successful applicant would never have sex, at all. This meant that they were recruiting only those youngsters who were prepared to accept such a monstrous infringement on the exercise of their perfectly natural urges. Because of this condition of entry, the only applicants were already profoundly unhinged, damaged goods. They were either stupid, or the type of impressionable individual who thought it normal that this be a not negotiable part of the job description.

To accept such a limitation on the rest of ones life displays, at best reading, a significant level of naivety. Alternatively, these lads knew exactly what they were getting themselves into, and relished the prospect of joining the party. Those parishioners who were most vulnerable, who were most susceptible to the priestly exercise of power, and were least likely to give up such perverts, were their obvious and natural quarry - the young.

Some see the celibacy thing as the church displaying an obsession with matters sexual. I'm sure that obsession exists, though I think a more likely explanation dates back a thousand or so years, when celibacy became a condition to enter the priesthood. The church was shitting itself because of claims on the church's assets and funds by the divorcing wives of their clergy .

In the end, all of this current brouhaha will matter little. Nothing in the church will change until it is circumcised from its very top. That ain't goin' to happen while those at the top have a vestmented interest in it never happening. FFS, the practitioners of that faith advertise themselves as the only institutional, historical constant (read survivor) over the past two thousand years, which is an intended slur on the efforts of the equivalent Jewish organisation.

If we don't address the reasons for this paedophilia problem, it will continue to be a festering carbuncle on the bum of religion. If religions are happy with that, it would be of little surprise. Such an outrageous cluster**** by the churches, other (some of them state) institutions, the police, the legal system and in particular, a society which allows such things to go unexamined and unacknowledged. For the victims and survivors of these predatory activities the costs are unimaginable. This is especially so for those who haven't experienced such disabling predations.

End of rant, except to say that the level of discussion of the outcomes and underlying reasoning surrounding celibacy have been painfully shallow, so far. This is one, largely failed, attempt to examine the issue from another perspective.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Richard Pryor said:
Judging by his initial post he is bravely calling out the JEWS.
Click to expand...
Surely not. For that to be true, the poster would have to be anti-Semitic. Unimaginable on these boards, this one in particular.

Edit: If you are nice to me, I'll stop calling you, surely?
 
AM said:
The allegation has **** all to do with this thread. And my comment was merely reporting what has turned out to be true.
Click to expand...

It's a different allegation but your comment is relevant to this thread.

AM said:
Am I the only one who has misgivings about someone who waits 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape?
Click to expand...

Why did you have misgivings about the woman who accused Bill Shorten because she waited 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape - but not in relation to the accuser in the recent Pell trial who took over 20 years before taking action on an alleged rape?
 
sorted said:
Another hypothetical. Assume for a second that Pell did not sexually assault the two boys. What possible defence could he have mounted that would have been successful?
Click to expand...

I posited this question yesterday but no one has ventured a reply. Anyone?
 
sorted said:
Why did you have misgivings about the woman who accused Bill Shorten because she waited 28 years before taking action over an alleged rape - but not in relation to the accuser in the recent Pell trial who took over 20 years before taking action on an alleged rape?
Click to expand...

I am unsure why you would need an answer to that question.
 
skilts said:
Surely not. For that to be true, the poster would have to be anti-Semitic. Unimaginable on these boards, this one in particular.

Edit: If you are nice to me, I'll stop calling you, surely?
Click to expand...
level of hypocrisy is rife.. you know as well as I do that crumbs are easily gathered and we shatter our own illusions..I get there eventually;;u///
a spitting northwards is always carried further...
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

GuruJane said:
during the time under investigation, 80% of children who attended a religious school or were resident in a religious institution, were students in or resident in a Catholic institution. The twenty percent of students/residents in institutions run by other religious groups accounted for 40% of the total abuse reported. In other words, a student in a non-Catholic religious school was more than twice as likely to have been molested than a student in a Catholic school.


In fact, Catholic clergy have lower rates of abuse than clergy of other religions or denominations (some groups, for example the Jehovah’s Witnesses, have far higher reported rates of abuse than any mainstream denomination). In turn, clergy of other denominations have lower rates of abuse than occur in secular community and sports groups and public schools (the Boy Scouts in the US has just filed for bankruptcy because it cannot keep up with payouts for abuse claims). And abuse in any church, school or community group is far outstripped by abuse in the home, where it has been estimated 90% of abuse occurs. As Bettina Arndt noted


It’s total hypocrisy. We jump up and down in the Royal Commission about abuse of people in institutions. We don’t give a stuff about the major risk for children which is, you know, children in single parent families being abused by boyfriends passing in and out of those families … There are a whole lot of areas [of sexual child abuse] we don’t discuss because they are not politically correct. Obviously, we’re trying to get the Catholic Church and attack churches.
Click to expand...

Agree with this post. There's blatant hypocrisy being displayed by selective outrage about which sexual abuse is highlighted.
 
sorted said:
Hypocrisy 101
Click to expand...


You need to think about this a little more. I'm sure others will explain the difference between being 13 and being an adult. Along with other considerations of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Osho
    • Like
USA Daniel Penny Not Guilty
Replies
4
Views
705
Osho
Osho

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom