301 Predator Priests...

[Terraceth]

So ask yourself this question: if the majority of the acts were perpetrated on young, post-pubescent women, would we be hearing about the church's "heterosexual problem?"

Somehow, I think not. Hence my comments.

Of course we wouldn't, because the majority of people are heterosexual. If the majority of the victims were female, that would be normal.

[carpedm9587]

Of course we wouldn't, because the majority of people are heterosexual. If the majority of the victims were female, that would be normal.

I think you just said it would be normal if the majority of sexually abused children were female...

[Terraceth]

I think you just said it would be normal if the majority of sexually abused children were female...

We were talking about abuse by the priests. You said that if the majority of those abused (by priests) were female, there would be no talk of a "heterosexual problem" and tried to frame this as some kind of dissonance or hypocrisy. The problem is that if the majority were female, that would be considered normal because, due to the majority of the population being heterosexual (and all priests being male), it would be expected that the number of females abused by priests would dramatically outnumber the males. Indeed, the abuse being split equally among males and females would already be an anomaly, but it's even more than that with the abused males outnumbering the abused females.

[Tassman]

Maybe, maybe not. Pagan religion was crumbling before then, even with imperial support, and Christianity was growing despite imperial opposition.

Christianity was not growing among the ruling classes. It took emperor Constantine’s adoption of Christianity and the need for ambitious courtiers and their families to do the same before it began to flourish. Actually, as an aside, Edward Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, regards Christianity as a primary cause of Rome’s decline as a power.

Said who, when?

The Athanasian Creed was the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated...this is the core doctrine of Christian orthodoxy.

That's a rather broad assertion. Creedal statements were being composed (probably orally) even before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, which incorporates one. The first church-wide attempt seems to have been the Nicene Creed, which was followed by a number of unsuccessful attempts to modify it.

Certainly! The Nicene Creed was probably one of the earliest. My point was that creeds would not have been necessary if it hadn’t been for the confusion and resultant heresies arising from attempting to incorporate the notion of a three-fold Trinitarian deity into the traditional monotheistic God of the Hebrews.

Inasmuch as Councils are part of the tradition, sure. Canon was never an explicit topic at the church-wide Councils, however.

True, but that’s not the point being made.

Allegedly. Paul's letters were collected as a group extremely early (perhaps even by Paul himself, as the practice was not unusual in antiquity).

The commonly accepted "Pauline" tradition consists of seven genuine documents and another seven spurious ones. Very few scholars outside of conservative Christianity consider Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and of course Hebrews, to be authentic epistles of Paul.

Yes, those are the most prominent of the writings not accepted, but the difference is still stark (see also here).

An unsurprising conclusion given your conservative sources...“stark” is largely in the eye of the beholder!

[rogue06]

I think you just said it would be normal if the majority of sexually abused children were female...

Since priests are all men and the overwhelming majority of men are heterosexual then unless the majority of priests are gay the overwhelming majority of the victims should be female.

[One Bad Pig]

Christianity was not growing among the ruling classes. It took emperor Constantine’s adoption of Christianity and the need for ambitious courtiers and their families to do the same before it began to flourish.

Actually, it was growing among the ruling classes - Clement of Alexandria was certainly not poor, and wrote for others who were not, Origen had a rich (Christian) patron, Gregory Thaumaturgus could afford a classical education, as could Basil the Great (whose family had been wealthy, some of whom had been martyred), Rome had considerable funds to help the needy even in surrounding cities by the end of the 3rd century.... Certainly, the conversion of Constantine accelerated things, but he was hardly starting from scratch.

Actually, as an aside, Edward Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”, regards Christianity as a primary cause of Rome’s decline as a power.

As someone hostile to Christianity, I'm not surprised he thought that.

The Athanasian Creed was the first creed in which the equality of the three persons of the Trinity is explicitly stated...this is the core doctrine of Christian orthodoxy.

You didn't answer my question. The Nicene Creed, as modified at Constantinople, does the same: "[The Son is] consubstantial with the Father.....the Holy Spirit...together with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified...."

Certainly! The Nicene Creed was probably one of the earliest. My point was that creeds would not have been necessary if it hadn’t been for the confusion and resultant heresies arising from attempting to incorporate the notion of a three-fold Trinitarian deity into the traditional monotheistic God of the Hebrews.

I'm not sure about that. The Jews have a creed "the Shema"; the Muslims have a creed (the first of the 'five pillars'). The Trinity does complicate things.

The commonly accepted "Pauline" tradition consists of seven genuine documents and another seven spurious ones. Very few scholars outside of conservative Christianity consider Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus and of course Hebrews, to be authentic epistles of Paul.

Given post-hoc analysis 1700 years later, yes. I am unpersuaded by the arguments given (yes, I have investigated them).

An unsurprising conclusion given your conservative sources...“stark” is largely in the eye of the beholder!

Well, no. It's based on an analysis of the data; non-canonical documents are much less accepted and much less frequently quoted or alluded to than canonical writings. The conclusion derives directly from the facts.

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not - I'm making a point. If the predominant victims were girls, would you be discussing the church's "heterosexual problem?" I'm inclined to believe not. I think you also know that would not be the case. You see, heterosexuality is considered "normal and OK," so you (and others) would be looking for other psychological factors - separate from sexual orientation. But homosexuality - that's a big no-no. So immediately it's about the sexual orientation - and not about other psychological factors.

Do I have evidence? Absolutely. Separate from the Catholic Church, the predominant victims of under-age sexual abuse are girls. But we do not hear about the "heterosexual problem" in that context. The references are to pedophilia when it is pre-pubescent children, and "sexual abuse of a minor" when they are not. We do not say that a hetero-sexual abusing children is doing so because they are hetero-sexual. But when they are homosexual - suddenly the issue is sexual orientation.

Ok, you've abundantly proved it IS a homosexual problem.

[One Bad Pig]

Since priests are all men and the overwhelming majority of men are heterosexual then unless the majority of abusive priests are gay the overwhelming majority of the victims should be female.

Fixed that for you.

[Sparko]

Yes



Science is not an immutable field, Sparko. There are MANY things that were considered "psychological disorders," until we learned more. If you don't realize that, why don't you do a study on women's health through history. Many things we now realize are normal parts of human physiology were once classified as "disorders."



Doubtful - but I don't try to read crystal balls. I deal with the facts before me. The fact is that your position is inconsistent with clinical psychiatry and psychology, which does NOT categorize homosexuality as a disorder, and DOES categorize pedophilia as one - not a sexual orientation. You can cling to your views if you wish, but you have no credible basis for doing so scientifically. All you have is your existing, religiously-prompted bias.



The nation of Japan and the nation of Germany were (and are) led by governments - and we were at war with that government and those who adhered to its policies. That does not mean we were at war with all Japanese and all German people everywhere. Likewise, some leadership elements and some adherents in Islam are "at war" with non-Islamic peoples - that does not mean were are at war with all of Islam. The U.S. had a problem with the government and armies of Japan and Germany. To extend that to American citizens who happened to be of Japanese or German descent was indefensible. It was one of our saddest hours as a nation. We are repeating it today with Islam, though not to so severe a degree. And we are beginning to repeat it with immigrants in general, as more and more people who "look foreign" are being accosted and attack (verbally and otherwise) despite being American citizens - all in the name of hating those who are "other."

this seems to be your standard go-to defense. Whenever anyone says something about a group, you instantly try to burn a straw man claiming that they are indicting every single person in that group and then arguing against that. When a country does something, no not everyone in that country is guilty of it. When America fights in a war, there are factions in the public who support it and those who are against it. But that doesn't excuse the USA as a country for things that they do or don't do. The Japanese problem was a problem with the NATION of Japan trying to take over the world and attacking the USA. It is proper to call it a problem with Japan. That doesn't mean every Japanese person in the world is part of "the problem"

[carpedm9587]

We were talking about abuse by the priests. You said that if the majority of those abused (by priests) were female, there would be no talk of a "heterosexual problem" and tried to frame this as some kind of dissonance or hypocrisy. The problem is that if the majority were female, that would be considered normal because, due to the majority of the population being heterosexual (and all priests being male), it would be expected that the number of females abused by priests would dramatically outnumber the males. Indeed, the abuse being split equally among males and females would already be an anomaly, but it's even more than that with the abused males outnumbering the abused females.

And yet the point stands. The problem is predominantly with females in the larger world, but we don't hear about the "heterosexual problem." Making it about sexual orientation when we are talking about a) an all male population, that b) has demonstrably stronger access to boys than girls, and c) is a profession that fits with the psychological profile of homosexuals, so attracts more of them is simply another expression of the animosity towards the gay community.

[carpedm9587]

Since priests are all men and the overwhelming majority of men are heterosexual then unless the majority of priests are gay the overwhelming majority of the victims should be female.

You ignore the fact that the majority of priests are not engaged - more than 96% are not involved with any of this. we're talking about a 4% slice, who are multiple repeaters. Yes - there is a problem. It is a pedophilia and "child sexual abuse" problem, not a "homosexual" problem.

[carpedm9587]

Ok, you've abundantly proved it IS a homosexual problem.

Umm...no. What I have shown is that there is an inconsistency in how the problem is framed: it is sexual orientation when it is members of the gay community involved, and "pedophilia or child sexual abuse" when it is heterosexuals involved.

[carpedm9587]

this seems to be your standard go-to defense. Whenever anyone says something about a group, you instantly try to burn a straw man claiming that they are indicting every single person in that group and then arguing against that. When a country does something, no not everyone in that country is guilty of it. When America fights in a war, there are factions in the public who support it and those who are against it. But that doesn't excuse the USA as a country for things that they do or don't do. The Japanese problem was a problem with the NATION of Japan trying to take over the world and attacking the USA. It is proper to call it a problem with Japan. That doesn't mean every Japanese person in the world is part of "the problem"

Go back and reread the thread, Sparko. I have been fairly clear and consistent from the outset. And I always try to speak up when broad-brush claims are being made about an entire segment of the population identified by a single characteristic. This is part of the "other" mentality being foisted on us so we feel good about rejecting people who are different. I simply don't let it slide.

[Sparko]

And yet the point stands. The problem is predominantly with females in the larger world, but we don't hear about the "heterosexual problem." Making it about sexual orientation when we are talking about a) an all male population, that b) has demonstrably stronger access to boys than girls, and c) is a profession that fits with the psychological profile of homosexuals, so attracts more of them is simply another expression of the animosity towards the gay community.

they wouldn't call it a "hetersexual problem" they would just call it a child abuse problem. But when it is happening in a minority segment of the population, then it makes sense to frame it using a term such as "homosexual problem" Because if all things were equal we should see a greater number of heterosexual child abuse events (9 to 1) since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by 90%. Yet when looking at this, we see almost the opposite, probably 90% of the child abuse cases are by homosexual priests against boys and only a small fraction is by heterosexual priests against girls. That indicates a "homosexual problem" on top of a child abuse problem in the church.

[carpedm9587]

they wouldn't call it a "hetersexual problem" they would just call it a child abuse problem.

Exactly my point.

But when it is happening in a minority segment of the population, then it makes sense to frame it using a term such as "homosexual problem" Because if all things were equal we should see a greater number of heterosexual child abuse events (9 to 1) since heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by 90%. Yet when looking at this, we see almost the opposite, probably 90% of the child abuse cases are by homosexual priests against boys and only a small fraction is by heterosexual priests against girls. That indicates a "homosexual problem" on top of a child abuse problem in the church.

The problem is not homosexuals. It is child abusers and pedophiles. You don't even know the sexual orientation of the people involved. You're just jumping to, "if they have sex with male minors, they're gay." It's not a supportable assumption. Even heterosexuals have male-to-male sex under the right conditions.