Child Abuse

[Spud Henley]

Greetings all,

I don't want to make a joke of this but I can no longer help being straight to the point. I am off the opinion that sexually repressing someone plays the biggest part in the sexual and other types of abuses on children in the presence of especially Roman Catholic priests.

I myself don't believe that you should go around rooting anything that moves because your horny and it should only between someone you care about. I have managed somehow in the face of my urges to stick with this but it doesn't seem to be the general consensus in the public. However if it doesn't hurt anyone and your both careful then that's up to you, I wouldn't interfere. Most religions however do interfere and when it comes to priests they get mental disorders relating to this.

Like I said earlier I don't want to make a joke of this. Is anyone else of this opinion or not or should I just shut up? I would genuinely like to know. -SPUD.

[Kosmos]

I think that there may be better fora for this question. It's an extreemly sensitive subject especially for the victims, and I have no doubt whatsoever that there is likely to be at least one victim of this kind of abouse here.

I'd look into psychotherapy and psychoanalsis journal's that is the best place to find objective information, if you are university student you will have access to the journal catalogues retained by your educational institution.

[Fearless]

Sorry, not really sure what you are asking but the bottom line is, nothing excuses child abuse.

I hear people say 'oh let these priests get married' assuming it will solve the problems or at least stem the flow of instances.

Yes the frequency may drop but at the end of the day there are sick bastards in every walk of life, just most aren't under the protection of the institution which is the church.

The cover ups and abuse of power are the significant factors that make these instances stand out more so.

Deconstruct the institution, reduce immunity and take these offenders to task... If the institution cannot control itself then it needs to be dissolved.

[Fearless]

You're not suggesting there are homosexuals in religious organisations?

Surely this is either just not true or the devil is working his evil ways?

Note: please don't think I am linking homosexuality with child abuse. Different issue.

[Spud Henley]

Sorry, not really sure what you are asking but the bottom line is, nothing excuses child abuse.

I'll clear up my question, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks there is a correlation between sexual repression and paedophilia.

I can say from personally experience while withholding I felt slightly mad. I didn't have any "sick bastard" tendencies to abuse anyone but I was in a never-ending battle with myself to abandon my own morals on the issue and just root someone to alleviate the frustration.

As "there are sick bastards in every walk of life" (Quote from Fearless) I personally think that the frustration I felt from 'not getting any' could in extreme cases like priesthood where celibacy is for life rather than until they meet the right person could manifest itself in a negative way such as abuse.

[Fearless]

My use of the words 'sick bastard' was in relation to people, adults who abuse children as per your thread title.

It was not relating to having sex with same gender or the opposite sex, assuming it was legal and consentual.

I am sure you and most others know the difference between right and wrong. If you are in the right then of course you weren't in the 'sick bastard' category.

I would argue most child abusers know exactly what they are doing, they know it's wrong but abuse trust and/or power to fulfil their sick desires.

[rainbowings15]

To call a pedophil "sick" is to diminish his/her responsibility. Most peds are people who are monsters and know exactly what they are doing.
I heard recently, the reason why there are so many peds in the priest hood is because there are less people signing up for it, so the pickings are slim. I believe that to be part of the picture. Add celebisy into the mix and this is what you get. The whole system needs to change.

[nari]

My take on it from various and sundry readings, licit or not, is similar to rainbowings: they chose the 'vocation' because of the protection of the church to do what they feel inclined to do, whatever that may be.
They may not get away with homicide but abuse of trust and predating...well, that's quite OK.

nari

[atheist_angel]

I'll clear up my question, I'm just wondering if anyone thinks there is a correlation between sexual repression and paedophilia.I don't think they are connected the way you originally suggested. For example: You still can find incidences of rape in tribal cultures. These cultures are not what you would call "sexually repressed". I think people have the problem before going into the clergy. You do find sexual repression in religion (eg. saving oneself for marriage) but it often coincides with a lack of critical thinking skills and contributes to a lack of relationship skills. It doesn't turn people into sexual abusers. It can however make one more vulnerable to abuse if that person lives in a culture where talking about sex is shameful and taboo.


You may have a different opinion.

[Seamus]

@Spud: you might also consider the sort of men who are attracted to the Catholic clergy model instead of the usual partnered living arrangement.
A recovering Catholic taught (if you'll excuse the expression) by an order of brothers,that is more my view. There were no 'saintly men' .They were a collection of neurotics,sadists and I'm pretty sure repressed homosexuals.

I have no doubt the church's intransigent position on celibacy doesn't help.

My position is: We cannot choose to whom we are attracted.BUT We CAN choose our behaviour. Any person who harms a child needs to be held accountable. Institutional tolerance is despicable.

In my opinion,as autocratic head of a theocracy the Pope is personally responsible for how the issue is addressed.His responses and of those around him to date have been those of politicians in damage control. I think it's contemptible,an apparently not uncommon view world wide.

[Spud Henley]

I guess that I'm the only one who reckons repression leads to disorder?

[Fearless]

I guess that I'm the only one who reckons repression leads to disorder?

The other way around. 'Disorder' + repression = Higher risk of offence.

I'd argue the 'disorder' was already there, the repression increases the likelihood of committing the act.

I think if someone is inclined to want to do something like this there is a good chance that they will in any environment given the opportunity.

If they are repressed and in an environment which allows access to fulfill those desires then there is most likely a more increased risk (your example).

I ask the question if ANY believer at whatever level of faith has desires to commit acts like these, then they are contradicting their own teachings and should leave their religion and seek help. I'd say most don't.

The only consideration I'd have is for people in faith who were raised into faith from infancy. That they have not found themselves before being made to find their god. Any personal traits they might have (from birth) such as homosexuality which the church shuns, commits them to a life of lies, guilt and secrecy, unless they can get out all together. But again I am not saying that homosexuality has anything to do with child abuse; I am talking about things about us that we have no control over.

[Fearless]

@Fearless: You're leaving out the forgiveness factor.

With a little fudging, it is possible to use "god forgives me" as a Big Reset Switch and further enable sociopathic tendencies.

Ahh yes, good point, I did forget that thank you.

[Spud Henley]

Mind the atheist pun here but I feel ''ENLIGHTEND' by these responses and will have to rethink my opinion. I still believe there is a correlation between the two but reading some of the comments here maybe not so much as strong as I thought to be so.

Having said that, I can't help but think of another question to ask on the subject. Why do people with these tendencies become attracted to the churches in the first place?

[Brad]

I’m speaking with no expertise in this area, but I don’t think that men join the church because they think that it’s going to give them the opportunity to abuse children. I think that enforced celibacy coupled with being in a position of power over pre-pubescent children will undoubtedly lead a proportion of men down that path.

I checked some figures a couple of weeks back because a Catholic apologist on another forum was bleating that the proportion of abuse was less in the church than in the general population. What I found was that the figures were pretty much the same (at least for the US). That is, the proportion of Catholic priests who end up abusing children is about the same as the figures for the general population.

What I haven’t been able to find is any figures on the proportion of boys to girls that have suffered abuse and whether that is different to the general population. I’d suggest in any case that even if it was a much higher proportion of boys, homosexuality is not the cause. This is paedophilia, plain and simple.

[Loki]

The stink isn't because the rates are different to the general population, I expect you are right and the rates are the same. The stink is because the matter is denied and covered up as a matter of course, the perpetrators are not punished and are often allowed to continue doing it.

This is a different problem to institutional abuse of children, which is another current but different stink altogether.

[Logic]

It's an interesting question and one which my partner and I have discussed. I'm not sure that enforced celibacy makes someone a child abuser but it probably doesn't help.

I do wonder why if you have pent up sexual frustration due to celibacy, why don't you go shag a prostitute or another adult instead of abusing a child. Therefore I give credibility to Fearless's point of view that perhaps they are inclined to be a paedophile anyway and the celibacy contributes to the problem.

[davo]

My response to an article on the Oz Catholic League website that uses the figure that only 0.02% of priests are kiddy fiddlers:

http://ozcatholicleague.com/wordpress/?p=161

When I posted it, it showed up, not sure if it is being moderated and then will appear, or they saw me post it and removed it.


Your figures seem to be wrong, well radically different than a study in 2002* that says it's 4% of priests.

http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html

Phillip Jenkins, is NOT the world expert in this, he is a professor of history and religious studies that went on to become an associate professor of criminology.

oh wait, your referring to his book "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" that was published by Oxford University Press in 1996, 8 years before that comprehensive study.

4% .. that's 1 in 25 priests fiddling with children, in specific positions of 'moral authority'.

*If you think it is a biased study, Thomas Plante, PhD., ABPP is Professor of Psychology and Director of the Spirituality and Health Institute at Santa Clara University as well as an Adjunct Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine. In recent years he has served as psychology department chair as well as acting dean of the school of education, counseling psychology, and pastoral at Santa Clara University.

He currently serves as Vice-Chair of the National Review Board for the Protection of Children for the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops and is President-Elect of the Psychology of Religion division of the American Psychological Association.

Plante is also referenced off the Catholic League USA website and referenced in articles there.

oh and Time Magazine referred to him (April 1, 2002) as one of "three leading (American) Catholics."

I'm interested in how you explain why the figures being used seem to drastically have changed from within the ranks of catholicism in such a short time, and instead of quotes from a catholic psychologist REAL leader in the field, the catholics are now using figures that better reflect what they want too reflect.

[Spud Henley]

Perhaps, if it is true that the statistics of general population vs the priesthood in the U.S is the same (and possibly the rest of the world) then could it be that the media is just jumping on a bandwagon as they always tend to do?

In any case, I swift kick to the nuts for each child abused might be a good deterrent, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". -SPUD.

[Fearless]

In some countries you could be bashed, beaten and burned to death for committing a crime like this... I wonder if the rate of offence is any different in these places.

Not saying that corporal punishment is the answer, but the severity of punishment surely plays a factor... whereas in our 'developed' countries these crimes seem to be just swept under the carpet for the most part.

If these priests and other clergymen (and women) knew that they would be locked up for many years without consideration for their religious standing, could it reduce the frequency? I'd like to think so.

[Godless Ray]

A thing I had wondered is "why children"? as opposed to a sexual relationship with an adult or over age female (or male) partner. I know they have kids around but often other older people that could be seduced by these people. What is it that attracts them to young kids?

[Brad]

My response to an article on the Oz Catholic League website that uses the figure that only 0.02% of priests are kiddy fiddlers...

I'd got the figure of 4% (0.04) from the John Jay report which was commisioned by the church itself. But that was over a period of 52 years. I was bending over backwards to be as fair as I could, so I divided the percentage by 52 to give a very approximate yearly average and that matched the rough reckoning of the national average.

The number of children sexually abused children in the US per year is a depressing 90,000. Child Abuse: Statistics, Research, and Resources for Recovery (http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/#official-us)
The male population is over 130 million (all ages).

Even assuming that only one man commits one abuse of one child, that gives you a ratio of 0.0007 of the population or one man in 1,444 committing that abuse.

In 2004, the John Jay report, commissioned by the US Conference of Bishops and based on surveys conducted by the church itself found that .04 of all priests between 1950 and 2002 had raped children (Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia))
On a yearly basis, that's equal to the absolute minimum national average.

I know that statistics can prove any position, but I was just mightily pissed off that this jerk was just pulling figures out of his arse to try to lessen the sheer horror of the situation: 'Look, we're not as bad as everyone else - why are people giving us a hard time about it!'.

There's a serious case for Ratzinger to be questioned by police as soon as he leaves his pissant little kingdom and ventures into the real world.

[davo]

The John Jay report was USA based yes? It seems to be in line with the report I mention 2 years earlier, that from what I understand was global .. tho I am not 100% sure of that. Even if US based, they seem to coincide

(I also note my post has not yet been published on the Oz Catholic League site ...)

[Seamus]

Not saying that corporal punishment is the answer, but the severity of punishment surely plays a factor...

Interesting hypothesis,I'd be fascinated to see your evidence,along with any evidence that penalties deter any serious crime.


@Ray

Not overly interested in the why of it,which I suspect is a common victim's attitude. I think we need to get better at identifying these rock spiders,catching them and locking them up. Sadly our society does not permit putting them down as one puts down rabid dogs.

[Fearless]

Seamus, I don't think I claimed any fact in my post, if I did, I didn't mean to as I don't have any facts or figures. I was merely curious if there would be any comparison between countries with harsher penalties to say ours. I was responding to the eye for an eye statement. I will review that post and retract any false claims I unintentially made. Cheers.

Edit: apart from missing a question mark after the word 'surely' I can't see where I was asserting any fact. I sense my grammar has let me down somewhere.

[Brad]

Interesting hypothesis,I'd be fascinated to see your evidence,along with any evidence that penalties deter any serious crime.

I’ve been browsing the subject for a while and the only consensus that I can see from those who have considered the problem is: It depends. There are simply too many variables in the general population to say with any certainty that the greater the penalty the greater the deterrence.

If you’re rationally considering breaking the law, then you’d have to balance the possibility of getting caught and punished (and the severity of the punishment) against the probable benefits that might accrue. If there’s an extremely harsh penalty but next to no chance of being caught, then you might proceed. If there’s a good chance of being caught, but an extremely lenient sentence, you still might proceed.

However, I don’t think that the priest in the confessional coercing the young boy to suck his dick is rationally considering anything at all. He is so separated from the norms of society outside the church that I personally doubt that he considers he is doing anything wrong in the first instance. Or if he is, then he’s doing his best to convince himself (as is the whole fucking church all the way up to Ratzinger) that it’s not as serious as the rest of society deems it to be.

The Catholic Church is literally a law unto itself. The Pope is protected by the fact that he is a head of state. He has himself, as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, demanded secrecy from all those concerned with accusations of abuse, even those who have been abused. They demand that these matters are handled internally – a process which, in some cases has taken years. And this is a criminal act that we are talking about. It would seem to me to be a criminal act in itself not to inform the civil authorities.

You could have the death penalty for this sort of sick behaviour and it wouldn’t change a thing. We need someone like Geoffrey Robertson to charge the head of this corrupt organisation with civil rights abuses through the Court of Human Rights. Anyone know his contact details? I might email the suggestion to him.

[riddlemethis]

A thing I had wondered is "why children"? as opposed to a sexual relationship with an adult or over age female (or male) partner. I know they have kids around but often other older people that could be seduced by these people. What is it that attracts them to young kids?

I wonder if it isn't simply a case of missing statistics actually. The bishop from the US had 5 children to three different women IIRC. He also abused children. He was simply an abuser.

I would imagine that children are much easier to predate could be one thing, but additionally, a grown up who subscribes to the faith & who starts a relationship with a priest is hardly likely to dob anyone in I'd reckon. None-the-less such a relationship can easily be contextualised as an abuse of power, although I'm sure many of them go under the guise of 'consensual' & much mental gymnastics is done to protect the rep of the church.

[Brad]

We need someone like Geoffrey Robertson to charge the head of this corrupt organisation with civil rights abuses through the Court of Human Rights. Anyone know his contact details? I might email the suggestion to him.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/leading-atheists-richard-dawkins-and-christopher-hitchens-seek-popes-arrest-20100412-s1av.html

"[Fellow lawyer Geoffrey Robertson] and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature."

Could be that Geoffs on the case already...

Ah - I see that this is being well covered elsewhere.

[Spud Henley]

Child abuse is effed up, I think IQ tests and sanity tests should be mandantory to become a preist and concubine should be provided as was in the bible it seems.

[Fearless]

Child abuse is effed up, I think IQ tests and sanity tests should be mandantory to become a preist and concubine should be provided as was in the bible it seems.

Police checks might be a good start also.

[Spud Henley]

As a man I think it sucks that I'm affraid to be around children because I'd probably be acused of being a peadophile. Thanks alot Roman Cathlic Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fearless]

As a man I think it sucks that I'm affraid to be around children because I'd probably be acused of being a peadophile. Thanks alot Roman Cathlic Church!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The problem isn't confined to the church.

When I was studying to work in the social services field there was a study I was shown, about the change in trend from males working as primary school teachers up to university teaching.

Years ago there were a higher number of males working with primary school kids to females, and lower numbers working in universities.

Since child abuse has become more openly addressed and reported in recent years, so has the trend flipped on its head. Now there are very few male primary school teachers but a high male teacher representation in universities.

Not because male primary school teachers have been offenders, but because male primary school teachers typically don't want to risk being implicated.

There is (or was) a common opinion in the public (I don't have sources but it was part of this study) that male teachers who work with children are often under scrutiny, with comments along the lines of 'Why would men want to work with kids that young anyway?'

I personally think it is a real shame. Kids need male and female influences in their lives. Not just with parents. Sure you need to protect kids but there has to be some perspective. Even if it means standard rules about how male (and female) teachers interact with children to not only protect the kids but the teachers too. Well this goes for any establishment where kids and adults interact.

Comes down to the few spoiling it for the many.

[Spud Henley]

[quote=Fearless;71635]The problem isn't confined to the church.[quote]

With this I agree.