Pope admits clerical abuse of nuns including sexual slavery

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
927
645
335
#1
BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47134033
Pope Francis has admitted that clerics have sexually abused nuns, and in one case they were kept as sex slaves.

He said in that case his predecessor, Pope Benedict, was forced to shut down an entire congregation of nuns who were being abused by priests.

It is thought to be the first time that Pope Francis has acknowledged the sexual abuse of nuns by the clergy.

He said the Church was attempting to address the problem but said it was "still going on".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47134033
 
Jun 25, 2015
2,723
894
300
Finland
#3
Turns out 70's nunsploitation movies were actually documentaries.
Now I'm just waiting for the news where the Pope admits there's been some Satan worshipping in the cellars.
 
Jun 13, 2007
7,065
83
995
#7
Strange, did they run out of small boys?
The catholic grade school I went to had a Priest who was arrested for child abuse. I always thought he was a creepy dude, and thought there was something up with him, then a few years when I left he was caught.
 
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#8
The actual fuck. This doesn't make any sense. This makes me want to throw up. I'm confused. This just proves what some have been saying about the Church. I will always stand with her as an instution of Christ but what is being allowed and ignored is just evil.

It also said that the response of Pope Benedict was to dissolve the Community of St. Jean when this was going on! He punished the actual victims instead of the perpetrators! What actual bullshit! Get rid off these men, cast them out as the cancer that they are! Get an inquistion to root out this evil in our beautiful church! Many in the clergy are good people and they deserve better than to be a part of a system where sexual abuse is swept under the rug! Disgusting.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#10
The actual fuck. This doesn't make any sense. This makes me want to throw up. I'm confused. This just proves what some have been saying about the Church. I will always stand with her as an instution of Christ but what is being allowed and ignored is just evil.

It also said that the response of Pope Benedict was to dissolve the Community of St. Jean when this was going on! He punished the actual victims instead of the perpetrators! What actual bullshit! Get rid off these men, cast them out as the cancer that they are! Get an inquistion to root out this evil in our beautiful church! Many in the clergy are good people and they deserve better than to be a part of a system where sexual abuse is swept under the rug! Disgusting.
We are caught in such a difficult place. There are not enough men for the seminaries anymore, and we simply have to do more to make sure that homosexuals are weeded out. (Despite the headline above, more than 90% of Catholic abuse cases are on males.)

Evil is in the church, but it always has been because it is in men's hearts. The Devil of course uses this to drive people away from God and his church.

I have moved toward thinking that a married priesthood is the only answer, though of course not perfect. So many men would make wonderful priests except for feeling called towards marriage and a family. The Orthodox churches do it, married convert priests from Anglicanism and Lutheranism are allowed to serve as priests. St. Peter himself was married. It is time.

Of course defrocking any abuser and turning them over to secular authorities is necessary. Ideally, extradition to Vatican City and a burning at the stake in St. Peter's square would be even better.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,454
1,910
365
#12
I have moved toward thinking that a married priesthood is the only answer, though of course not perfect. So many men would make wonderful priests except for feeling called towards marriage and a family. The Orthodox churches do it, married convert priests from Anglicanism and Lutheranism are allowed to serve as priests. St. Peter himself was married. It is time.
I am a Catholic who supports this. First and foremost, spiritual leaders are required to give counsel about marriage. The days of set gender roles are long behind us, and the stresses of raising a family in this world grow by the day. I believe married clergy would have more credibility than those who are single when giving said counsel, and would have more real life experiences to help them be better at it. Second, I believe the families of married clergy would help support the church's mission greatly. Third, I believe history and our knowledge about human nature has made it clear that rejecting family oriented men into the clergy has allowed predators to hide among them all too easy.
 
May 4, 2005
12,406
1,169
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#14
well you start by sucking their dicks.

then you look up at them to see if theyre enjoying it.

once the heavy lifting is done, you wait a bit and ask them if they want another.

boom. full-proof gay detection method.
But this only works if the professional cocksucker is sexy. @Cunth would you be willing to volunteer?
 
Likes: Kamina
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#15
This is monstrous and any perpetrators should be criminally prosecuted, removed from ministry, and their names published. But this article identifies one order and, while alluding to bigger problems, is not a statistical analysis demonstrating pervasiveness.

The idea of a married priesthood is not rooted in evidence and it contradicts the teachings of both Jesus Christ and the apostolic fathers in the New Testament. In spite of the public imagination and purely statistically speaking, Catholic priests are among the safest professions to leave your children with. The rate of abuse today is below that of the general population and other denominations, including those with married priesthoods. The Catholic sex abuse scandal was almost entirely confined to the decades of the sexual revolution, with abuse rates falling back below the levels of the general population by the 1990s. The reason why some Bishops were moving them to treatment centers and different dioceses is because the psychologist community at the time insisted that they can be cured and actually dissuaded the leadership against implementing a zero-tolerance policy. Now that we know the psychologists were wrong, the standard practice is removal from ministry, publication of identity, and referral to the authorities.

Undoing the married priesthood would just be one more post-Vatican II abandonment of the things that make Catholicism unlike anything else in human history. We ripped out the tabernacles, watered down the teachings, did away with Latin, cut down the breviary and rosary, and punished any priests who dared speak about abortion or gay marriage in their homily. Everything done in the name of accessibility, relatability, and modernization has strangely coincided not only with onset of the collapse in church attendance, but the onset of the surge in child abuse as well.

You are not going to solve these problems by giving a man an outlet to take out his sexual frustrations on. We can only change our culture by reasserting the sexual ethics that the World is going to demonize us for anyway, despite how unmentionable they have become in practice. The Apostles chafed when Jesus extolled the power of celibacy and his response is timeless, that with God, all things are possible.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,326
5,156
475
#16
We are caught in such a difficult place. There are not enough men for the seminaries anymore, and we simply have to do more to make sure that homosexuals are weeded out. (Despite the headline above, more than 90% of Catholic abuse cases are on males.)
Way to go blaming the ills and problems of your institutionalized religion on homosexuals, perpetuating the homophobic views of your belief system. I've already talked about this in another topic, but let me just reiterate that nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys are heterosexual. The abuse of little boys has no bearing on the sexual orientation of the offender. Frikkin' disgusting comment to make.

The actual fuck. This doesn't make any sense. This makes me want to throw up. I'm confused. This just proves what some have been saying about the Church. I will always stand with her as an instution of Christ but what is being allowed and ignored is just evil.
Were you not so blinded by your own religious dogmatism, you'd see that the institution of the church is rotten to the core. The rampant sexual abuse is just one problem in the long list of atrocities committed by the catholic church. The fact that you liked @appaws outright homophobic comment is merely evidence that your blind faith is making you unable to gain the critical distance needed to deal rationally with the abhorrent crimes of your "beautiful" church.
 
Last edited:

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
584
21
405
amugsblog.blogspot.com
#17
By no means am I trying to defend the actions of these priests, but with stories like this, it's important to remember the sheer volume of Catholics in the world (something like 1.3 billion?), so unfortunately, some of them are going to be suckered in by the allure of evil. Likewise with the child abuse problems, the actual percentage of people partaking in it is no higher than non-Catholics, as far as I know.

I'm more concerned with Pope Benedict's actions in shutting down a congregation of nuns over this because it only fuels the fire of the Church sweeping wrongdoing under the rug. I think I need more info.
 
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#18
@strangeheadache

I'm not going to respond to you as you just give fallacious responses and blame religion for everything. There is no reason within you when it comes to the topic of religion. I also am not homophobic and do not neccessarily agree with the idea that homosexuals are the root of the problem, so stop it with the false accusations. Also, not being pro-homosexual relations does not make one prejudiced.

I am not in an arguing mood right now so I will hope that others will argue you instead. God bless you.
 
Apr 9, 2009
27,182
1,611
815
#20
Simple fix: let the priests have a wife or girlfriend.

They can do celibacy as part of their training and initation, but once they are priests just let them fuck.
 
Likes: Kamina

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
#21
While I can totally get off on the the idea of keeping a nun as a sex slave, there is no way I am typing that into a search engine at work. Priests really shouldn't be doing that though. Vows of celibacy and all.
 

138

Member
Sep 1, 2015
443
209
290
#22
While I can totally get off on the the idea of keeping a nun as a sex slave, there is no way I am typing that into a search engine at work. Priests really shouldn't be doing that though. Vows of celibacy and all.
You know, it's possible that the priests were just casual observers to the activities of their captured nuns, thereby keeping their vow intact.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#23
Way to go blaming the ills and problems of your institutionalized religion on homosexuals, perpetuating the homophobic views of your belief system. I've already talked about this in another topic, but let me just reiterate that nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys are heterosexual. The abuse of little boys has no bearing on the sexual orientation of the offender. Frikkin' disgusting comment to make.



Were you not so blinded by your own religious dogmatism, you'd see that the institution of the church is rotten to the core. The rampant sexual abuse is just one problem in the long list of atrocities committed by the catholic church. The fact that you liked @appaws outright homophobic comment is merely evidence that your blind faith is making you unable to gain the critical distance needed to deal rationally with the abhorrent crimes of your "beautiful" church.
You're misrepresenting your own post, where the quote is that married men with children commit 80% of all child abuse. As I've cited in that same thread, your lie here is completely and irretrievably backwards - 70.8% of the Catholic clergy abusers were homosexual.

You continually argued in bad faith in that thread, avoiding the fact that homosexuals are irrefutably, wildly, and disproportionately overrepresented in pedophilia, all the while insisting the opposite without evidence.

When you joined this forum in the wake of the exodus, you quickly made a name for yourself with your incredibly detailed and well-cited posts. Unfortunately, I've noticed all of that goes entirely out the window when it comes to religion. CGG is a good dude, a reasonable poster with good intentions but you just can't help yourself from vilifying him with hyperbole and condescension.

You again display that with your Wikipedia link of atrocities. Honest question: how much of that do you genuinely think characterizes the faith and witness of the 1+ billion Catholics today? Exactly what percentage of the billions and billions (and billions) of Christians who have lived and died throughout history have you attributed this to? Once you get us that percentage, what method do you use to weigh those episodes against the humanitarian and cultural achievements of Catholic faith? Precisely how much weight do you afford the Church for being the largest provider of education, disaster relief, and overall humanitarian services not only in the world today, but throughout all of human history?

I'm going to guess you haven't apportioned or compared anything and you're just talking shit on the confines of the internet because it makes your brain feel good when you morally condemn entire groups of people who think differently than you do.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
3,792
3,494
460
#24
You know, it's possible that the priests were just casual observers to the activities of their captured nuns, thereby keeping their vow intact.
I have a feeling that rule 34 applies here.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,326
5,156
475
#25
I also am not homophobic and do not neccessarily agree with the idea that homosexuals are the root of the problem, so stop it with the false accusations. Also, not being pro-homosexual relations does not make one prejudiced.
Sure, that's why you liked a comment that wants to "weed out all homosexuals", because it falsely identifies sexual orientation as the root cause of the abuse cases within the catholic Church. Essentially ostracizing these people from your supposedly tolerant and caring religious community. Don't give me that disingenuous bullcrap.

You continually argued in bad faith in that thread
I'm arguing in bad faith, yet it is you who cannot read properly? Like, I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you, so allow me to quote that again in bigger letters with some added color coding:

Most men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual.
...avoiding the fact that homosexuals are irrefutably, wildly, and disproportionately overrepresented in pedophilia, all the while insisting the opposite without evidence.


When you joined this forum in the wake of the exodus, you quickly made a name for yourself with your incredibly detailed and well-cited posts. Unfortunately, I've noticed all of that goes entirely out the window when it comes to religion.
Nah, you just can't stand it if some of that reasoned criticism is directed against your holy institution. I'm merely being consistent as my intellectual rigor is turned against discrimination and fundamentalism of any kind, be it ideological, political or religious.

You again display that with your Wikipedia link of atrocities. Honest question: how much of that do you genuinely think characterizes the faith and witness of the 1+ billion Catholics today? [...] I'm going to guess you haven't apportioned or compared anything and you're just talking shit on the confines of the internet because it makes your brain feel good when you morally condemn entire groups of people who think differently than you do.
Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension? This bullsh*t strawman is the exact reason why I have underlined that I'm criticizing the institution of the catholic church in my previous comment. Pointing out the crimes of the catholic church is not the same as condemning entire groups of people. Contrary to you I'm perfectly able to make nuanced argumentation, without falsely accusing homosexuals of being pedophiles.

Talkin' about morally condemning entire groups of people, you and your fellows are the ones sitting in glass houses here, especially considering that your own church and your own Popes have a long history of condemning homosexuality.
 
Last edited:

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,233
581
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#26
What exactly do you envision to find out who is gay?
Obviously that is not an easy thing, and of course people would lie. Basically, have them sign a contract and profess before God that they are not. Then instant defrocking and excommunication if they are found to have lied.

I am a Catholic who supports this. First and foremost, spiritual leaders are required to give counsel about marriage. The days of set gender roles are long behind us, and the stresses of raising a family in this world grow by the day. I believe married clergy would have more credibility than those who are single when giving said counsel, and would have more real life experiences to help them be better at it. Second, I believe the families of married clergy would help support the church's mission greatly. Third, I believe history and our knowledge about human nature has made it clear that rejecting family oriented men into the clergy has allowed predators to hide among them all too easy.
I admit I have had thoughts when being counseled by a priest about marriage issues. Like "what do you know about it, dude?" Of course I recognize that an outsiders perspective on marital issues can be valuable, and I could just call my Dad or something for the opinion of a married man. But my main argument is just about numbers. The seminaries are hurting. I repect the opinions of guys like Bolivar and CGG a lot on Church issues, and I would ask them this....vocations are down. What are we to do?

Way to go blaming the ills and problems of your institutionalized religion on homosexuals, perpetuating the homophobic views of your belief system. I've already talked about this in another topic, but let me just reiterate that nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys are heterosexual. The abuse of little boys has no bearing on the sexual orientation of the offender. Frikkin' disgusting comment to make.

Were you not so blinded by your own religious dogmatism, you'd see that the institution of the church is rotten to the core. The rampant sexual abuse is just one problem in the long list of atrocities committed by the catholic church. The fact that you liked @appaws outright homophobic comment is merely evidence that your blind faith is making you unable to gain the critical distance needed to deal rationally with the abhorrent crimes of your "beautiful" church.
By definition, 100% of the men who molested little boys are not heterosexual.

You are not going to solve these problems by giving a man an outlet to take out his sexual frustrations on.
This is not what I mean at all. I don't think that is what a wife is, just a place to "take out his sexual frustrations." I am talking about the whole participation in a full life as a man, who is graced by God with the desire for partnership and family with a woman. And if he is also called to be a priest and serve his God and community and strong enough to take on those duties of vocation and husband/father, particularly in an age when we are powerfully under siege by the adversary, why not?

Celibacy and the choice of many priests, maybe even most priests, to remain celibate would still be considered a Godly and powerful choice...perhaps even preferred.
 
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#27
Sure, that's why you liked a comment that wants to "weed out all homosexuals", because it falsely identifies sexual orientation as the root cause of the abuse cases within the catholic Church. Essentially ostracizing these people from your supposedly tolerant and caring religious community. Don't give me that disingenuous bullcrap.



I'm arguing in bad faith, yet it is you who cannot read properly? Like, I don't know how I can make this any more clear to you, so allow me to quote that again in bigger letters with some added color coding:









Are you having trouble with your reading comprehension? This bullsh*t strawman is the exact reason why I have underlined that I'm criticizing the institution of the catholic church in my previous comment. Pointing out the crimes of the catholic church is not the same as condemning entire groups of people. Contrary to you I'm perfectly able to make nuanced argumentation, without falsely accusing homosexuals of being pedophiles.

Talkin' about morally condemning entire groups of people, you and your fellows are the ones sitting in glass houses here, especially considering that your own church and your own Popes have a long history of condemning homosexuality.
You're continuing to argue in bad faith - I have to imagine that surely you recognize the difference between a majority and an overrepresentation. No one has ever claimed, in either thread, that the majority of pedophiles are homosexuals. Yet you keep responding to this imaginary assertion (asking me if I know how to read), all the while refusing to acknowledge that 21% of pedophiles self-identifying as exclusively homosexual is indeed a larger percentage than the 4.5% of the population that is non-heterosexual (meaning the number of exclusively homosexual is even smaller) What logic are you using to argue that this is not an overrepresentation?

Your distinction is not reassuring - one of the central tenets of Catholic faith is that the Church is the people, not the hierarchy. You also haven't answered whether your assertions of rot and crimes are at all colored by the unparalleled and unprecedented humanitarian aid which the institution itself provides.

If you want to resolve these issues, I hope we can do it without insulting and cursing at eachother.
 
Last edited:
Jan 16, 2015
238
3
270
#29
The catholic grade school I went to had a Priest who was arrested for child abuse. I always thought he was a creepy dude, and thought there was something up with him, then a few years when I left he was caught.
Ahh catholic school those where the days, trying to keep away from the local priest so we wouldn't get diddled but there was always one who go caught.
 
Likes: Guiberu
Jan 21, 2015
2,284
223
350
#30
Obviously that is not an easy thing, and of course people would lie. Basically, have them sign a contract and profess before God that they are not. Then instant defrocking and excommunication if they are found to have lied.
Why not have them sign a contract and profess before God that they won't molest kids?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,326
5,156
475
#31
What logic are you using to argue that this is not an overrepresentation?
Your own study has given you an answer to that, yet you keep ignoring these reasons because they don't comply with your confirmation bias and faith induced dislike for homosexuals:

The internalization of Church doctrine concerning celibacy/chastity reinforces many cognitive distortions, which allows the abuse to persist. Hands also hypothesizes that the steps the Church has taken to discourage the formation of close friendships between priests, under the pretense that it may lead to homosexual behavior, have also played a role in the creation of a pro-offending environment. With this increased social isolation comes a greater alienation from the body. Therefore, sexuality is repressed only to later emerge as an obsession.
Furthermore:

The authors invoke a widely-cited hypothesis to explain the higher rates of sexual abuse among non-heterosexuals, the hypothesis that “sexual minority individuals are ... more likely to be targeted for sexual abuse, as youths who are perceived to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual are more likely to be bullied by their peers.” The two conjectures — that abuse is a cause and that it is a result of non-heterosexual tendencies — are not mutually exclusive: abuse may be a causal factor in the development of non-heterosexual attractions and desires, and at the same time non-heterosexual attractions, desires, and behaviors may increase the risk of being targeted for abuse.
To make it short, nowhere does the study suggest that higher abuse rates are linked to homosexuality.

Your distinction is not reassuring - one of the central tenets of Catholic faith is that the Church is the people, not the hierarchy.
Yeah tell that to the many christian believers who also happen to be staunch critics of the catholic church as an institution. The numbers of believers who are turning their backs at the church are constantly on the rise and for good reason.



This coincides with the growing percentage of religious "nones", many of whom are spiritual but do not agree with the positions churches and religious organizations take on social/political issues:



Christian are leaving their churches in droves and will keep declining by 12 percentage points in the coming decades:



Moreover, only the most devout believers are still attending religious services regularly:



Lastly, educated people are the least likely to attend church services:



Heck, you even have a believer in this very same topic complaining about the regressing numbers of church goes and seminaries. Why do you think that is? You can blame homosexuality all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Fact is, your religious organisation does a poor job adapting to the changing realities of modern pluralistic western democracies.
 
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#32
Your own study has given you an answer to that, yet you keep ignoring these reasons because they don't comply with your confirmation bias and faith induced dislike for homosexuals:



Furthermore:



To make it short, nowhere does the study suggest that higher abuse rates are linked to homosexuality.



Yeah tell that to the many christian believers who also happen to be staunch critics of the catholic church as an institution. The numbers of believers who are turning their backs at the church are constantly on the rise and for good reason.



This coincides with the growing percentage of religious "nones", many of whom are spiritual but do not agree with the positions churches and religious organizations take on social/political issues:



Christian are leaving their churches in droves and will keep declining by 12 percentage points in the coming decades:



Moreover, only the most devout believers are still attending religious services regularly:



Lastly, educated people are the least likely to attend church services:



Heck, you even have a believer in this very same topic complaining about the regressing numbers of church goes and seminaries. Why do you think that is? You can blame homosexuality all you want, but the numbers don't lie. Fact is, your religious organisation does a poor job adapting to the changing realities of modern pluralistic western democracies.
Now you're changing the subject. I asked you how you define overrepresentation, and you responded by providing conjecture about the nexus between sexual repression and child abuse. Which is just flat out bizarre, considering only a moment ago you were bolding and upsizing text that the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are married men with children.

Let's try this:

Merriam-Webster defines overrerepresented as "having representatives in a proportion higher than the average." You still have not contested that less than 4% of the population is gay, but roughly 20% of pedophiles identify as exclusively homosexual.

Unless you're disputing this definition or these figures, do you agree that this is a vast overrepresentation?
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,326
5,156
475
#33
Unless you're disputing this definition or these figures, do you agree that this is a vast overrepresentation?
Dude, from your own article:

---------------------------------------------------
Science and case management experience has shown us that most child molesters are heterosexual. Abuse is about power and control and is not anchored by sexual orientation.

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, researcher on adult male offenders and author of "Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender", states that it is a myth that adult males who molest boys are homosexual. He provides several clinical examples to back up his finding including the connection that molesters see themselves in their victims, but would not be attracted to adult males.

"…They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children...." (Groth, 1982)

Medical data backs up this psychological observation. In a 1994 study, researchers reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital as a result of being sexually abused. In looking at charts for a one year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992), the researchers found that the molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1 percent of cases (2 of 269) in which the adult molester could be identified. (Jenny, Roesler, and Poyer, 1994).

Thankfully, most Americans have heard that message loud and clear. In a 1999 random digit dialing phone survey, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19 percent of heterosexual men and 10 percent of heterosexual women (Herek, G.M., 2002).
---------------------------------------------------

So no, homosexuals are quite evidently not over-represented among child abusers.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2014
3,947
862
345
USA
#34
Dude, from your own article:

---------------------------------------------------
Science and case management experience has shown us that most child molesters are heterosexual. Abuse is about power and control and is not anchored by sexual orientation.

Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, researcher on adult male offenders and author of "Men Who Rape: Psychology of the Offender", states that it is a myth that adult males who molest boys are homosexual. He provides several clinical examples to back up his finding including the connection that molesters see themselves in their victims, but would not be attracted to adult males.

"…They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children...." (Groth, 1982)

Medical data backs up this psychological observation. In a 1994 study, researchers reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children’s hospital as a result of being sexually abused. In looking at charts for a one year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992), the researchers found that the molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1 percent of cases (2 of 269) in which the adult molester could be identified. (Jenny, Roesler, and Poyer, 1994).

Thankfully, most Americans have heard that message loud and clear. In a 1999 random digit dialing phone survey, the belief that most gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19 percent of heterosexual men and 10 percent of heterosexual women (Herek, G.M., 2002).
---------------------------------------------------

So no, homosexuals are quite evidently not over-represented among child abusers.
If you genuinely do not believe that 21 is a larger number than 4, then there's nothing I can do to help you.
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,326
5,156
475
#36
If you genuinely do not believe that 21 is a larger number than 4, then there's nothing I can do to help you.
Well, first of all there's the fact that your own article contradicts your assumptions. Secondly, you are comparing apples to oranges:

Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual and most of these men were married and had children of their own.
You somehow take that number and compare it to the whole population of the U.S.A., but nowhere does the study even suggest that their sample size is representative of the whole population. You are merely inferring something that is not stated by the article.

Then of course, there is this:

One problem is that none of the studies in this area have obtained data from a probability sample, that is, a sample that can be assumed to be representative of the population of all child molesters. Rather, most research has been conducted only with convicted perpetrators or with pedophiles who sought professional help. Consequently, they may not accurately describe child molesters who have never been caught or have not sought treatment.
Moreover, the sexual attraction of child abusers is not centered on the gender of the victim but is purely age based:

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.
In other words, they consider young boys as sexually attractive as young girls.

Using the fixated-regressed distinction, Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. Of the last group, Groth and Birnbaum observed that "in their adult relationships they engaged in sex on occasion with men as well as with women. However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..." (p.180).
The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). In summary, each of these studies failed to support the hypothesis that homosexual males are more likely than heterosexual men to molest children or to be sexually attracted to children or adolescents.
Lastly, let's assume your silly attempt at comparing googled up numbers with scientific studies happens to be right, there is still the fact that homosexual people are 5 times more likely to be abuse victims themselves. Considering that abusers see their victim as a projected representation of themselves, it is more likely that experienced abuse is driving people towards abusive behavior, not their sexual orientation.

But so far, not one, not a single scientific study has managed to back up your claims. So unless you have better evidence, take your prejudiced religious bigotry somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Yoshi
Dec 22, 2007
3,772
107
895
#37
Unless you're disputing this definition or these figures, do you agree that this is a vast overrepresentation?
First, massive props for debating with a moderator. I know he/she's not a supreme-judge, or anything, but there is a bit of ballsiness attributed to directly confronting a mod.

Secondly, all you've proven thus far is that a fair amount of Catholics in the church like to rape children, and of those rapists, a mild portion of them are gay.
From that inference, you've further-inferred that people who rape children tend to be gay.
When instead, what you should infer is that people who rape children tend to be Catholic.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2015
1,282
1,301
300
Austin, TX
#38
First, massive props for debating with a moderator. I know he/she's not a supreme-judge, or anything, but there is a bit of ballsiness attributed to directly confronting a mod.

Secondly, all you've proven thus far is that a fair amount of Catholics in the church like to rape children, and of those rapists, a mild portion of them are gay.
From that inference, you've further-inferred that people who rape children tend to be gay.
When instead, what you should infer is that people who rape children tend to be Catholic.
Both of the bolded are wildly inappropriate assertions that have no basis in reality.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,840
1,769
235
#40
this is good that they are speaking on this IMO there needs to be more Me Too for the Catholic Church.

it is a shame but it is not something only happening to the church itself or religion. as we have seen so often and so recently, it is in all man-made institutions, from the movie industry to music to comedy to politics to sports, etc. scandals everywhere. every institution has powerful people using their privilege to abuse people & piss on the social contract.

feel like the transparency info revolution will go a long way towards stopping this. awareness is a key part of this.
 
Last edited:
Oct 11, 2011
27
30
370
#41
Honestly, I'm wary of any organization that exists for the purpose of doing something that people believe to be good. We don't want to question people that are doing "good things," and so when people with bad intentions join these organizations they don't get the same level of scrutiny as a regular person doing regular things.


"Of course he would never this, he's a man of the cloth,"

"Of course they would never, they are a charitable organization,"

The moment an organization claims to do anything good on behalf of others I put my skeptic glasses on. We don't want to question people when they say they are doing something good, and any organization that says they do good as part of their mission statement has a fairly effective rhetorical shield they can use against any criticism, and so we wake up every so often to ludicrous scandals like this.
 
Oct 21, 2018
408
206
170
#42
The Catholic sex abuse scandal was almost entirely confined to the decades of the sexual revolution, with abuse rates falling back below the levels of the general population by the 1990s.
I'd argue the opposite. It was probably just easier to hide or throw away the evidence of sexual abuse during previous decades and centuries, when public talk about sex was frowned upon. Report rates were lower because it wasn't often talked about and priests had more authority, not because it didn't happen.
 
Aug 15, 2018
583
446
205
#43
First, massive props for debating with a moderator. I know he/she's not a supreme-judge, or anything, but there is a bit of ballsiness attributed to directly confronting a mod.
Strange is a mod?

I'm arguing in bad faith...?
Yes, how is that a question? Literally your first comment in this thread was a response to me being upset at this news and you wrote

Were you not so blinded by your own religious dogmatism, you'd see that the institution of the church is rotten to the core. The rampant sexual abuse is just one problem in the long list of atrocities committed by the catholic church. The fact that you liked @appaws outright homophobic comment is merely evidence that your blind faith is making you unable to gain the critical distance needed to deal rationally with the abhorrent crimes of your "beautiful" church.
There was so much bias and bad faith in that post I find it hard to find where to even begin. First you see my moment of weakness and say that my religion is rotten and evil. Then you also assume that I am blinded by dogmatism, yet you know absolutely nothing about me or why I am a roman catholic. I believe because I find it logical, I am not some fideist who just takes everything that I am told. In fact, my original post was clearly CRITICIZING the people who allowed this to happen.

You then also called appaws, Bolivar, and me homophobic despite no one saying anything hateful or bigoted about homosexuals. I actually disagree with appaws and Bolivar when they say that the problem is with homosexuals in the clergy. I don't think they are saying anything wrong and they are just thinking of what could we do to stop these sorts of things in the future. If they said "I hate homosexuals" and used slurs and epithets then I would agree with you, but they didn't. Do you even understand what the Church teaches about homosexuality? They aren't some reviled other as you would like to believe.

You also like to say I proselytize when I defend religion or the Church despite me never saying anything that suggests I want to force everyone to be Catholic. If anyone proselytizes it is you as you keep responding to me whenever I say something good about religion or I give my personal thoughts and feelings on something that is related to Catholicism. It is like you want me to abandon my faith for whatever reason.

Also, when I look at your debate with Bolivar you seem to treat him as a child. You really bold and enlargen words as if to say that he wouldn't see or understand it if you didn't put it right up in his face. Then you attack his character by calling him a bigot. He is a grown man, you don't need to treat him like a baby and insult him.

Can you honestly say with a straight face that you are arguing in good faith?

I am going to give you a few tips when conversing or debating with a religious person in the future,

1) Be respectful to your "opponent", even if you vehemently disagree with them. They aren't your enemy, they are just a person with another viewpoint. You aren't going to convince anyone by starting a conversation with "Your beliefs are rotten".

2) Engage with them, and maybe even try to find common ground. A discussion is give and take, don't just dish things out and refuse to listen to the other side. Through debate we can learn more about a topic. You can learn more about religious beliefs and the "opponent" can learn more about atheism.

If you don't shape up soon I am going to put you on ignore. Then you would have one less person to engage with in your passion (religion and enlightenment values). I don't think many religious people particularly wish to discuss with you based on the way you present yourself.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Rran
Oct 27, 2015
8,814
1,585
355
#45
The actual fuck. This doesn't make any sense. This makes me want to throw up. I'm confused. This just proves what some have been saying about the Church. I will always stand with her as an instution of Christ but what is being allowed and ignored is just evil.

It also said that the response of Pope Benedict was to dissolve the Community of St. Jean when this was going on! He punished the actual victims instead of the perpetrators! What actual bullshit! Get rid off these men, cast them out as the cancer that they are! Get an inquistion to root out this evil in our beautiful church! Many in the clergy are good people and they deserve better than to be a part of a system where sexual abuse is swept under the rug! Disgusting.
I understand you are angry, but if Jesus was literally with you and told you to forgive these sinners, what would you do? Because that's what the Catholics teaches: to be charitable and forgiving.
Don't fall into anger because of someone else's sin. What these clerics have done is wrong, but to admonish it is sinful in itself.

Of course, these clerics are still bound by the rule of law. The nation will give them justice on this world while they will see true justice in the afterlife, especially if they do not repent.
 
Jul 19, 2018
679
359
230
#46
We are caught in such a difficult place. There are not enough men for the seminaries anymore, and we simply have to do more to make sure that homosexuals are weeded out. (Despite the headline above, more than 90% of Catholic abuse cases are on males.)

Evil is in the church, but it always has been because it is in men's hearts. The Devil of course uses this to drive people away from God and his church.

I have moved toward thinking that a married priesthood is the only answer, though of course not perfect. So many men would make wonderful priests except for feeling called towards marriage and a family. The Orthodox churches do it, married convert priests from Anglicanism and Lutheranism are allowed to serve as priests. St. Peter himself was married. It is time.

Of course defrocking any abuser and turning them over to secular authorities is necessary. Ideally, extradition to Vatican City and a burning at the stake in St. Peter's square would be even better.
I agree. It was obviously a bad idea to not allow priests to marry. The position of power, and access to little boys was inevitably going to attract closeted homosexuals.
 
Nov 14, 2009
2,621
73
695
#47
I agree. It was obviously a bad idea to not allow priests to marry. The position of power, and access to little boys was inevitably going to attract closeted homosexuals.
I believe it's better to say that a position of power will attract weak willed individuals over a specific group of people.
 
Sep 5, 2018
151
218
220
Ireland
#49
Does this part sound odd to anybody else? What happened to the priests?
Exactly what you think.

As an Irish man who has witnessed first hand what the Catholic Church has done to people, I have no compassion for it whatsoever. The entire insitituation needs to (figuratively) burn to the ground, along with everything it stands for.
 
Last edited: