The Catholic Church has spoken

[skepticscott]

And their word on the clerical sex abuse scandal? It was the 60's. Everyone was doing it. And they were teenagers. So it didn't count.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/us/18bishops.html?_r=2&hp

[hedgehog]

1. When will institutions learn, no matter the crime, the cover-up is 10 times worse!

From another source (Italics mine):

"The John Jay researchers take pains to credit the hierarchy for making important strides in combating child abuse—an assertion victim advocates will strenuously dispute—and they point out that society as a whole was only slowly coming to understand the nature of child abuse as U.S. dioceses were swamped with cases.

At the same time, however, researchers note the bishops’ abysmal track record in so many tragic instances, and say church leadership was reflexively defensive and self-protective—behavior that fits a well-defined pattern of crisis management in large institutions.

Indeed, the authors convincingly argue that the clerical culture that fostered and concealed deviance by priests is remarkably similar to the law enforcement culture that allows police brutality. The church, like the police, is a hierarchical organization that operates in a decentralized way, with each department (or diocese) an authority unto itself and not inclined to open itself to oversight."

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/report-spreads-blame-catholic-sex-abuse

Even within the report - changing the definition of prepubescent from under 13 to under 10 is part of the on-going denial!

[Angry Dragon]

2. I would like to know why the taxpayers paid for part of this study

If anything the money should have been spent to try the bishops that covered up the sex crimes
and put a lot of them in jail

[pnwmom]

3. Actually, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice has spoken.

For whatever that's worth.

The Church commissioned the study and released it.

[skepticscott]

5. The Church bought and paid for the study

not to mention the people authoring it. Would the church have released the study if it contradicted any of their positions? Of course not.

Any other lame attempts at deflection?

[pnwmom]

8. Apparently you didn't bother to read the article. It didn't support the Church's position.

The Church had been blaming the sex abuse on the increase in homosexuals among priests. The study specifically contradicts this.

[skepticscott]

14. Apparently YOU didn't read the article

as far as the third paragraph:

The “blame Woodstock” explanation is the one same floated by bishops and Pope Benedict XVI since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002 and in Europe in 2010

Sheesh.

[pnwmom]

17. Keep going past the third paragraph. You claimed that they wouldn't

have released it if it "contradicted any of their positions," which is false.

The fact that it supported them on one point doesn't make your claim correct.

[skepticscott]

21. The statement you yourself cited below demonstrates

that the church did not have an official position on that part of the report. Conservatives said one thing and liberals said another:

"Since the scandal broke, conservatives in the church have blamed gay priests for perpetrating the abuse, while liberals have argued that the all-male, celibate culture of the priesthood was the cause. This report will satisfy neither flank"


Which, if either, was the church's official position? You have no idea, do you?

[pnwmom]

22. The Church never took an "official position" but the conservatives

are in charge -- and this report didn't confirm their beliefs.

[skepticscott]

26. Nice dodge

But you explicitly said that the report didn't confirm the Church's position on the issue, implying that there was one. If there was no official Church position, then your statement was just a smokescreen.

Try again.

[rug]

4. Actually, Karen Terry, CUNY, has spoken.

http://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/profiles/pdfs/Terry_Karen%20J.pdf

And these are the funding sources.

2006-2010 Study of the Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests
Funding agencies: USCCB: $1,000,000; National Institute of Justice: $283,652 (Award 2009-IJ-CX-0036); Knights of Columbus: $250,000; Raskob: $100,000; “Anonymous”: $100,000; Catholic Mutual: $50,000; SC Ministry: $50,000; Luce: $25,000; Catholic Health: $25,000; St Joseph Health System: $15,000; Greater Cincinnati Foundation: $10,000; Assisi Foundation of Memphis: $5,000; Daughter of Charity Foundation: $1,000.
Purpose: Conduct a study on the causes and context of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
Role: Principal Investigator
Funding amount: $1.6 million

Are you saying it's rigged?

[skepticscott]

6. I'm saying that the report accurately reflects

the Catholic church's position on the subject. Do you dispute that?

Next lame attempt at deflection?

[rug]

7. But you haven't answered the question. Are you saying the report is rigged?

If so, kindly provide your evidence.

[skepticscott]

10. Where did I say or even imply

that the report is "rigged"? Nowhere. You simply invented that strawman to deflect from the real issue. Nice try.

[rug]

11. I'll take that as a no.

[pnwmom]

13. You said that the Church "bought and paid for" the study

which clearly implies that it was rigged, by the conventional meaning of the terms.

[skepticscott]

20. Or that they had the right and power

to block its release if they didn't like what it said.

[pnwmom]

9. And you are wrong. Why not try reading the article,

even if you can't be bothered to read the report? The report says that the Church has been wrong -- that the increase in abuse cases was NOT related to increasing numbers of gay priests. The Church won't be happy with that conclusion.


"Since the scandal broke, conservatives in the church have blamed gay priests for perpetrating the abuse, while liberals have argued that the all-male, celibate culture of the priesthood was the cause. This report will satisfy neither flank.

"The report notes that homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this cohort entered the priesthood, in the mid-1980s, the reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests began to drop and then to level off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church."

[skepticscott]

12. I read both, thanks

Exactly what am I wrong about? What claims have I made that are inaccurate?

[pnwmom]

15. You falsely claimed that the Church wouldn't have released the study

if it didn't contradict their positions. But it DID contradict their position that the rising numbers of gay priests were behind the increase in sex abuse cases. As it said in the article in the OP, if you'd bothered to read the whole thing.

[rug]

16. Good work, especially considering the report itself will not be released until tomorrow.

[pnwmom]

18. LOL.

:rofl:

[kanrok]

23. That is absolutely hilarious

Skeptiscott must be clairvoyant.

How does that work again?

Someone can read a study that has yet to be relesed?

Do tell!

[skepticscott]

19. The church, from the pope on down, has been saying all along

that social pressures were behind the increased sexual abuse, which is exactly what the report states. It's been a despicable explanation all along, and the report merely solidifies that.

Of course, it doesn't explain how those "social pressures" caused members of the church hierarchy who were not abusers themselves to cover up and abet the crimes of those who were. For decades. Nor why it matters whether you label what was done "pedophilia" or simply "sexual abuse of minors".

So tell me..how far do you really want to go to defend either the church or this report?

[pnwmom]

24. I'm not defending the Church on this or the report.

But I AM saying that this is the report of the John Jay College, not of the Church. It was commissioned by the Church but John Jay College is responsible for what it says. And I'm sure those researchers would object to you questioning their integrity.

[skepticscott]

25. I'm sure they would too

but that doesn't mean the report isn't despicable and full of shit, for the reasons I cited above, among others. Has anyone bothered to ask the researchers how many of the priests who were guilty of abuse they actually interviewed about their motivations? Seems like that would be a nice thing to know. Is any other source of information short of that better than guessing?

[kanrok]

27. Did you read the study or not?

n/t

[kanrok]

29. So much for credibility

n/t

[Odin2005]

28. isn't that the same excuse Roman Polanski used?

"everyone was fucking little girls back then."

:puke: