The anti-lolita colouring book for Catholics [Archive]

Papewaio

12-05-2007, 07:45

Colouring book warns kids of pedophile priests (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=332321)

New York's Roman Catholic Church is trying a novel approach to alert children to the danger of being sexually assaulted by a priest, with an abuse-themed coloring book, officials said yesterday.

"Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic," was distributed earlier this year to several hundred schools in the New York area as part of the church's Safe Environment Program, a spokeswoman from the city's Archdiocese said.

One image in the book features a guardian angel hovering over an altar boy with a priest lurking in the background.

"For safety's sake, a child and an adult shouldn't be alone in a closed room together," the angel counsels. In another, the angel warns of a sexual predator attempting to chat with a child over the Internet.

Cool.

But I found these stats disturbing:

According to the group "Bishop Accountability," some 3000 priests out of the 42,000 across the country have since been denounced, some of whom have been investigated and convicted.

Since the scandal broke, US Catholic authorities have paid out close to 3.2 billion dollars in damages, forcing many dioceses to sell off their assets.

1 out of 14 has been denounced? I wonder what the projected rate of capture in. I hope it's better then 2 in 3.

Crazed Rabbit

12-05-2007, 08:06

What does 'denounced' mean? Just that someone said something about them? What is this 'Bishops Accountability' group? I wish they'd give us the rates for convictions and charges (IIRC, abuse by priests is less than teachers).

I suppose its a bit much to ask for competent journalism.

CR

Lemur

12-05-2007, 08:15

Another perspective (http://www.newsweek.com/id/73270) on the comic:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/071201_ps42_vl.jpg

Coloring Outside the Lines

The New York Archdiocese of the Roman Catholic church has an unusual new weapon against child abuse.

After years of humiliating sexual-abuse scandals, Roman Catholic Church officials are trying harder than ever to convince parishioners that they're doing everything they can to prevent such tragedies from happening again. That means public education, training programs and—in the New York Archdiocese—a surprisingly direct, abuse-themed coloring book for kids that's being sent to parishioners across the area. At first glance, "Being Friends, Being Safe, Being Catholic" is what you'd expect from a Christian handout: lessons in loving thy neighbor and knowing we're all special in God's eyes, plus a fun word search with names of people whom kids can trust (parents, counselors, teachers). Many of the book's cartoon-sketch drawings, which were created by a church volunteer, are light in tone and narrated by an angel looming overhead. But on one page, the angel warns of an online predator—with chest hair exposed—who attempts to chat with a child; on another (shown above), the angel implies that children should make sure they're never alone in a room with a priest.

That's an unusual approach, says David Clohessy, the national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, but not necessarily a bad one. "We welcome any innovation," he says, "especially from an institution that has such a horrific track record." The coloring book is intended as a supplement to the prevention curriculum mandated by a 2002 U.S. bishops charter—a way for adults to broach a topic that is "not the most pleasant to talk about," says Edward Mechmann, the director of the New York Archdiocese's Safe Environment Program. He says the book (along with comics about molestation, for older kids) has been shipped to about 700 schools. Administrators are then given the option of distributing them. "Teachers love it," Mechmann says. "It's a nice little vehicle for speaking to kids about [abuse]." Talk about alternative education.

Lemur

12-05-2007, 08:22

I wish they'd give us the rates for convictions and charges (IIRC, abuse by priests is less than teachers).
Here's some actual studies:

According to the John Jay Report (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/reports/2004_02_27_JohnJay/index.html), commissioned by the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops, there were extant accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all priests.

The Irish Government commissioned an inquiry which produced the Ferns Report, which detailed 100 cases, but produced no statistical data.

What little I've read on this subject indicates that getting reliable numbers is extremely difficult, due to (a) false accusations which are difficult to disprove, (b) an extraordinary lack of cooperation from the Catholic hierarchy, and (c) statute of limitations issues, which create de facto immunity, making investigation not only difficult but pointless from a legal perspective.

I don't have any data on the conviction rate of elementary or high school teachers.

-edit-

Digging through the John Jay Report, here's some more numbers:

The prevalence of sexual misconduct within the Catholic Church has been estimated by a number of social scientists . In an empirical investigation of treatment efficacy, Loftus and Camargo (1993) concluded that in their clinical sample of 1,322 priests and brothers, 27.8% reported having engaged in a sexual relationship with an adult woman while 8.4% reported sexual misconduct with a minor. Another researcher, Anthony Sipe (1990), showed that 2% of priests engage in pedophiliac behavior while an additional 4% of priests are sexually preoccupied with adolescent boys or girls. Sipe also concluded that 20% to 40% of priests engage in sexual misconduct with adults. However, these figures must be interpreted with caution due to the fact that they are based upon the authors' clinical experiences and not empirical evidence. Fones et al. (1999) found that in a sample of 19 clergymen (17 of which were Roman Catholic priests), 39% of the sample had offended against adolescents and 52% characterized the nature of their sexual behavior as deliberate. Like most studies conducted on this population, these results should be cautiously interpreted since the small sample size makes them unlikely to be generalizable.
The study summarizes similar statistics for the Boy Scouts, Big Brother, athletic organizations, YMCA and child care, but no teachers, I'm afraid.

HoreTore

12-05-2007, 08:59

What does 'denounced' mean?

Thrown out of the catholic church, I believe. And I doubt that the church throws people out over allegations.

Sigurd

12-05-2007, 09:09

Thrown out of the catholic church, I believe. And I doubt that the church throws people out over allegations.
Being thrown out is called excommunication.
I think 'denounce' here is 'made public'. After all, the church is not for perfect people but for sinners.

HoreTore

12-05-2007, 09:31

Being thrown out is called excommunication.
I think 'denounce' here is 'made public'. After all, the church is not for perfect people but for sinners.

True dat.

Denunciation (Latin denunciare) is making known the crime of another to one who is his superior.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04733b.htm

Husar

12-05-2007, 14:13

After all, the church is not for perfect people but for sinners.
:laugh4: :2thumbsup:

It's true but hardly anyone thinks like that.

Odin

12-05-2007, 14:57

According to the group "Bishop Accountability," some 3000 priests out of the 42,000 across the country have since been denounced, some of whom have been investigated and convicted.

Since the scandal broke, US Catholic authorities have paid out close to 3.2 billion dollars in damages, forcing many dioceses to sell off their assets. 2 in 3.

It never ceases to amaze me that a criminal organization like the catholic church time and time again continues to attempt to save face by some ridiculous trinket (coloring books).

History is riddled with the catholic church's criminal activity from top to bottom. Meantime the keep drawing people in under the guise of a pathway to god. What could be more offending then an organization that supported and covered up the sexual abuse now offerring tools to now recognize the patterns of behavior?

Is there such a concept as "redundant hypocricy"? I mean really, enough is enough why we dont have paddy wagons in front of church's every sunday is beyond me. If I am in a car with someone who is carrying a bag of weed I can be prosecuted as an accessory, but somehow that logic dosent transpose to those who support a proven ciminal organization like the catholic church.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 15:23

Denounced is the term that the Church uses for it. There is no statute of limitations for defrocking a priest. If the priest is still in vestments and at the same parish, chances are that they have done an investigation and turned up very little (the case after the scandal broke out).

I think that the "creepy priest" that you were talking about "looming" or "hovering" in the background was a priest with his back to the changing altar server with the door open, a sign of a priest who understands appropriate boundaries. That's what I think they are getting at.

Not that he is just waiting for the boy to slip up.

I used to be the head altar server and Sacrestin for my rather massive parish for about 3 years. I worked in the rectory and office where the priests lived. Not once before or after did I hear an accusation of anything like this going on. Once I heard of a 29 year old priest in another parish who was having a sexual relationship with a 17 year old boy, but did not have a single denouncement. Their relationship was a homosexual one rather than an older guy preying on a child. Still terribly creepy and illegal, and he was charged and ripped from the parish. In the real world 29 year old gay dudes slay 17 year old gay boys and that is just accepted as a homosexual relationship. When the church does it it's considered child abuse. Which is it? I'd say both.

The rate of predation is the same in the RC church as it is for other denominations even with their incredibly strong marriage deterrents...

Either way it is sick, but it sucks when people go around saying that some of the nicest people I know are sexual perverts.

DemonArchangel

12-05-2007, 16:14

Is there such a concept as "redundant hypocricy"? I mean really, enough is enough why we dont have paddy wagons in front of church's every sunday is beyond me. If I am in a car with someone who is carrying a bag of weed I can be prosecuted as an accessory, but somehow that logic dosent transpose to those who support a proven ciminal organization like the catholic church.

Unfortunately, there's much more of them (hundreds of millions at least), than there is of you, and if that many people believe that they're not committing criminal activity, then something that many people do suddenly legitimizes itself as acceptable, no matter how offensive it really is.

Odin

12-05-2007, 16:25

Unfortunately, there's much more of them (hundreds of millions at least), than there is of you, and if that many people believe that they're not committing criminal activity, then something that many people do suddenly legitimizes itself as acceptable, no matter how offensive it really is.

Well yes, however I did use a rather broad brush in my depcition. A wise friend pointed out to me that making sure I distinquish between Catholics and the catholic church is very important.

Indeed, I think given the historic data we can conclude that the Catholic church has engaged in morally, ethically and legally questional behavior. My contention is that given that this still continues in some capacity today (the preist cover up) I dont think its a stretch to say catholics that support the church support an organization that has willingly particpated in criminal activity.

that makes them part of the crime IMHO.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 16:29

Well yes, however I did use a rather broad brush in my depcition. A wise friend pointed out to me that making sure I distinquish between Catholics and the catholic church is very important.

Indeed, I think given the historic data we can conclude that the Catholic church has engaged in morally, ethically and legally questional behavior. My contention is that given that this still continues in some capacity today (the preist cover up) I dont think its a stretch to say catholics that support the church support an organization that has willingly particpated in criminal activity.

that makes them part of the crime IMHO.

The U.S. government has committed untold crimes. Does that make the government or all politicians criminal? Does it make states complicit in wars of aggression against native americans, Africans, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.? Does that make you personally liable for criminal charges?

I'm just asking, answers vary.

Crazed Rabbit

12-05-2007, 16:30

I am forced to roll my eyes at your rant, Odin.
:rolleyes:

CR

Odin

12-05-2007, 16:40

I am forced to roll my eyes at your rant, Odin.
:rolleyes:

CR

Come into the light Rabbit it shall set you free.

The collection plate starts at 9:15am sharp. :thumbsup:

Odin

12-05-2007, 16:51

The U.S. government has committed untold crimes.

1. Non specific "Untold" is rather vague

Does that make the government or all politicians criminal?

negated by the lack of specificity in the opening statement.

Does it make states complicit in wars of aggression against native americans, Africans, Vietnamese, Japanese, etc.?

I'd have to check on the circumstances for each citation you have given. However if a precedent of law could be applied, like in the case of the catholic churchs choice to cover up sexual assaults, yep the government would be complicit and liable.

Does that make you personally liable for criminal charges?

Possibly. as an example, at the time of the Iraq invasion I was all for it based on the assumption of WMD. I supported the government at that time and it was later found out to be a lie.

Now I would be liable (ethically morally what ever application you want) if I chose to support them after that revelation. I didnt, but your point is very vague here, its a broad net you wont capture me in.

We all know now the catholic church has knowingly conducted criminal acts, and just recently too. Therefore its within reason to make the claim that supporting the catholic church is supporting a criminal organization. The problem is systemic, not isolated.

Come back with specifics and I might bite again. :medievalcheers:

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 17:29

We all know now the catholic church has knowingly conducted criminal acts, and just recently too. Therefore its within reason to make the claim that supporting the catholic church is supporting a criminal organization. The problem is systemic, not isolated.

Come back with specifics and I might bite again. :medievalcheers:

How about this. British Airways has been found guilty of price fixing for fuel subsidies with Virgin Atlantic. Some top level executives were complicit in this crime. Combine this with other infractions that the same or other executives within the organization have committed in the past.

The company is responsible for paying the fine and the individuals related were charged. Does this mean that the company is a criminal organization?

It means that there have been crimes committed by executives and other employees within the company and that the company is held financially accountable. Are there paddy wagons sitting outside of their business places?

Within the U.S. government there have been murders, bribes and illegal conspiracies among many other things. Sometimes these are committed and covered up by top levels within the government. Add this to their historical ethical crimes, such as massacres in the american west (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacres - this is a list of massacres in both directions), Atomic bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, firebombing of villages around civilian areas of Japan and many others. Federal, State and local politicians have been known to kill, bribe, be bribed, and create other conspiracies for a long time. Somehow, the U.S. government is not viewed by most as a criminal organization.

All three examples can be seen as organizations that can occasionally contain criminals (who are usually later purged), but not organizations that are established for the purposes of committing crimes or shielding crimes. To liken any of them to organized crime would be inaccurate to say the least.

Odin

12-05-2007, 17:47

[QUOTE]How about this. British Airways has been found guilty of price fixing for fuel subsidies with Virgin Atlantic. Some top level executives were complicit in this crime. Combine this with other infractions that the same or other executives within the organization have committed in the past.

The company is responsible for paying the fine and the individuals related were charged. Does this mean that the company is a criminal organization?

It was at that point in time. Fortunately they dont have several centuries of criminal activity to affirm the claim the company is a criminal organization.

It means that there have been crimes committed by executives and other employees within the company and that the company is held financially accountable. Are there paddy wagons sitting outside of their business places?

For one instance which you claim indivduals were charged and paid fines? No of course not. If this was a sustained systemic issue over several instances of criminal behavior over a long period of time yes they should be.

Your arguing specific examples against historic precedents.

Within the U.S. government there have been murders, bribes and illegal conspiracies among many other things.

If you say so.

Add this to their historical ethical crimes, such as massacres in the american west (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_massacres - this is a list of massacres in both directions)

Yes this one was a criminal act under the guise of war. However how does this equate to a long term sustained criminal organization? The U.S. government hasnt been in exsistence long enough to compare to the catholic church.

Your coming off as taking selective pot shots. You have yet to make your comments specific to the catholic church.

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, firebombing of villages around civilian areas of Japan and many others.

obtaining victory in warfare is hardly comparative.

Federal, State and local politicians have been known to kill, bribe, be bribed, and create other conspiracies for a long time. Somehow, the U.S. government is not viewed by most as a criminal organization.

Federal, state, and local entities are seperate and distinct from "the U.S. government"

Your arguments havent addressed the catholic church what so ever. Comparitve example based on personal opinion dosent meter out to me. Perhaps someone else might want to argue with you on the merits of the "they did this specific example here" or "they conduct themselves this way".

Good for them, if you want to talk about the catholic church I am game. I have humored 2 of your non topical posts thus far. I get your point, I know what your trying to say but I remain firm in my contention in relation to the catholic church.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 18:00

Odin

12-05-2007, 18:23

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_organizations

Simply put, the Catholic Church does not fit the description in any way.

You have criticized me for not using specific enough examples of previous U.S. government crimes. It seems as if you have said that the RC church is criminal because of isolated instances of criminal activity combined with isolated instances of misguided and damaging cover ups by very few people in higher positions. All of this PLUS other stuff from history.

Prove that they are a criminal organization if you maintain that it is the correct label. That they are out to do bad for their own gain.

The Definition (your source) "Organized crime or criminal organizations are groups or operations run by criminals, most commonly for the purpose of generating a monetary profit."

1.Purpose of the site is to generate money (http://www.truecatholic.org/donations.htm)

2.2.a genuine article on donation activity during the sex scandal (http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/usa_catholic_donations_rise.htm)

Items 1 and 2 clearly illistrate that one of the purposes of the catholic church is to generate monetary gain. Based on your definition.

3.Sacramentum Poenitentiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentum_Poenitentiae): a proclomtion from benedict the 14th in 1741 explaining the issue of sexual abuse. This became part of cannon law which is used to train priests through 1982

4.Multiple sources of sex abuse. (http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/)

3 sets forth the legality of the abuse through thier own cannon laws. Item 4 proves thier violation of it.

Therefore if they are able to violate thier own internal laws, cover them up from the pope down its a systemic problem and a criminal organization IMHO.

Im about done with you, but since you demanded i prove my position, and i replied in kind with the rational of my position, I prostest strongly that your definition of "criminal organization" must be the only black and white definition.

You've basically set forth several points of argument that require the reader to accept your definitions based on suppositions mainly. You produced a wiki definition of a criminal organization and then demanded reply and the best you can offer is:

Simply put, the Catholic Church does not fit the description in any way.

Since your apt at demands lets see how you fare in the same vein.

Prove that they do not fit that description in any way You made the claim, back it up.

rvg

12-05-2007, 18:26

Odin

12-05-2007, 18:31

Being a catholic myself I might be a bit biased regarding this topic, but imho calling a church with 1 billion followers a criminal organization does not it it any justice. By definition that makes Mother Theresa and John Paul II criminals which is of course not the case.

as much as I would love to continue the back and forth, I have supported my position on 3 seperate posts.

I wait with baited breath for Tuff to support his claim. Thus far I am unimpressed and unswayed.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 18:44

The Sacramentum Poenitentiae, from the little that the Wiki article states seems only a realization that such offenses have occured and may continue to occur within the church. I cannot read latin.

Does the Catholic Church exist solely to commit crimes and make money? I don't believe so and I believe that such a statement would be preposterous.

You don't need to be swayed in your opinion. It is us who need to be swayed as the law in the U.S. (and everywhere else that I know of) does not regard them as such an organization. You are advocating a new understanding of the Catholic church, therefore it rests on you to prove your case. I disagree, but it does not seem that I will be able to dislodge you from your position.

Odin

12-05-2007, 18:50

You don't need to be swayed. It is us who need to be swayed as the law does not regard them as such. You are advocating a new understanding of the Catholic church, therefore it rests on you to prove your case. I disagree, but it does not seem that I will be able to dislodge you from your position.

you requested I support my position based on your definition of my proclomation and you wont extend the same to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_organizations

Simply put, the Catholic Church does not fit the description in any way.

Surely you can back up your claim with specifics Tuff? I did, and even though I might not agree with you, or you me one of the ways you gain credability in the Backroom is when you make claims and someone challenges them you can back them up with some modicum of coherent supporting documentation.

Thanks for the back and forth, very informative.

:medievalcheers:

rvg

12-05-2007, 18:57

Surely you can back up your claim with specifics Tuff? I did, and even though I might not agree with you, or you me one of the ways you gain credability in the Backroom is when you make claims and someone challenges them you can back them up with some modicum of coherent supporting documentation.

Thanks for the back and forth, very informative.

:medievalcheers:

Your claim about the criminal nature of the Catholic Church begs the question. Yes, it like any other religious organization accepts donations from its members. Yes, some (very few) members of the clergy engaged in inappropriate behavior which was not always properly dealt with. That does not make the Church a criminal organization. Your accusations are both offensive and absolutely groundless.

PanzerJaeger

12-05-2007, 18:59

It never ceases to amaze me that a criminal organization like the catholic church time and time again continues to attempt to save face by some ridiculous trinket (coloring books).

History is riddled with the catholic church's criminal activity from top to bottom. Meantime the keep drawing people in under the guise of a pathway to god. What could be more offending then an organization that supported and covered up the sexual abuse now offerring tools to now recognize the patterns of behavior?

Is there such a concept as "redundant hypocricy"? I mean really, enough is enough why we dont have paddy wagons in front of church's every sunday is beyond me. If I am in a car with someone who is carrying a bag of weed I can be prosecuted as an accessory, but somehow that logic dosent transpose to those who support a proven ciminal organization like the catholic church.

:laugh4:

You don't know much about the Catholic Church do you?

I'd like to know of some other criminal organizations that devote so much time and money to charity and the well being of the community.

But keep on painting.. I've got a broader brush you can borrow.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 18:59

Adrian II

12-05-2007, 19:01

Odin

12-05-2007, 19:01

Your accusations are both offensive and absolutely groundless.

Your entitled to your opinion, if you find something offensive may I suggest you put me on your ignore list, unsubscribe to the thread or report it to a mod?

thats what I have been told by mods here, so by all means please enact one of these tools that will enable you not to be offended by the content you choose to read.

Groundless? Hardly :rolleyes:

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 19:03

Thanks Papewaio (and Lemur) for another yummy thread. LMAO.

It is a pity though that 'educational' material once again frightens children. Banning all one-on-one encounters between kids and adults is just PC hysteria, clad in Catholic drag.

"Children should NEVER BE ALONE with an ADULT in ONE ROOM."

God forbid. :laugh4:

"Never talk to strangers"

Kids don't understand sarcasm, yet they should be able to magically discern who can be trusted alone with them?

Odin

12-05-2007, 19:23

:laugh4:

You don't know much about the Catholic Church do you?

I'd like to know of some other criminal organizations that devote so much time and money to charity and the well being of the community.

But keep on painting.. I've got a broader brush you can borrow.

My deepest appologies PJ but you have mistaken me for one of the other posters that cares what you think or thinks your cute.

Odin

12-05-2007, 19:29

I believe that the claim is absurd and possibly rooted in a disaffected bigotry. I think anyone who has looked so closely at the Catholic church and glossed over its charitable works is clearly operating with a bias. Do you know any clergy, have you attended Mass, have you looked at they financial record regarding; international charities, hospitals, social support? Where do you put the current pope and historical catholics on the scale of criminals?

I would like to see how many others feel the way that you do about the church.

Sorry but you dont dictate the debate, I made claims you called me on it and asked me to back it up based on your definitions.

I asked the same of you, you havent done so. With each follow up post your credability goes down the :toilet: . Demanding others to adhere to a specific format and ignoring the request for reciprication negates future points you make.

Nice try Tuff, but i'm done with you now.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 20:06

Sorry but you dont dictate the debate, I made claims you called me on it and asked me to back it up based on your definitions.

I asked the same of you, you havent done so. With each follow up post your credability goes down the :toilet: . Demanding others to adhere to a specific format and ignoring the request for reciprication negates future points you make.

Nice try Tuff, but i'm done with you now.

Okay

Husar

12-05-2007, 20:37

1.Purpose of the site is to generate money (http://www.truecatholic.org/donations.htm)
Same purpose here. (http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_subsrc=RCO_DonateButton&s_src=F7ZWGR00). Would you say they're both criminal organizations?
Well, you also said at the time a company/organization commits a crime it's a criminal organization, if that's meant to imply that after the crime has been dealt with, it's not anymore, then the catholic Church should be off the hook sometime, shouldn't it? Otherwise the list of companies you can buy from has to be rather short if you do not want to support criminal organizations.

2.2.a genuine article on donation activity during the sex scandal (http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/usa_catholic_donations_rise.htm)
That doesn't say a whole lot, I didn't read it but I doubt the increase came because people support that sort of activity. For all I know they could support their local priest who is not a pedophile, you know, these exist as well.

Items 1 and 2 clearly illistrate that one of the purposes of the catholic church is to generate monetary gain. Based on your definition.
That must mean you either support his definition or you use a different definition by which this applies as well. My definition however doesn't say that increasing donations during a scandal make a charity organization a criminal organization. Neither does the need for money, they could also charge for entering the church, would you prefer that? I guess you'd prefer they take no money at all and sell their church to survive but that's hardly efficient for any organization. :sweatdrop:

3.Sacramentum Poenitentiae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramentum_Poenitentiae): a proclomtion from benedict the 14th in 1741 explaining the issue of sexual abuse. This became part of cannon law which is used to train priests through 1982
That's a good thing, isn't it, the priests were made aware of the issues that existed beforehand and that the church does not want pedophile priests. That some priests chose not to adhere to it is an issue that could aonly be changed if the church were allowed/able to scan their thoughts. :dizzy2:

4.Multiple sources of sex abuse. (http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/)
I can give you multiple sources of army soldiers raping people but does that make the whole Army a criminal organization? Don't apply a double standard.
Before you say it was covered by the upper people, how about those arms sales that were going on in Iraq and were covered by some higher ranking people? Still, such cases in an organization do not make the whole organization a criminal organization.

3 sets forth the legality of the abuse through thier own cannon laws. Item 4 proves thier violation of it.
Exactly, those priests violate the laws of the catholic church, while all the others adhere to them, thus the few pedos do not represent the whole organization as they do not even adhere to the laws of the organization, much less represent a majority.

Therefore if they are able to violate thier own internal laws, cover them up from the pope down its a systemic problem and a criminal organization IMHO.
Now the cover up is the thing that makes them look worse, I'm not a big fan of the catholic church and I'm about to agree with you that on several places there is a lot wrong with it, but you were saying that all catholics are somehow supporting it, implying that they agree with such policies and I think that's where you are wrong, maybe the heads of the organization are pretty bad people(maybe not) but then you cannot say that some small priest who's only wish is to help people and who may not even know about all the crimes that go on elsewhere is a criminal or voluntarily part of a criminal organization. If you go that far I could say you support your government as long as you do not leave the US as a form of protest(concerning the Iraq argument). :dizzy2:

Now that was my first try at a serious post in a long time, hope it was somehow worth it. ~;)

Odin

12-05-2007, 21:05

URL="http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ntld_main&s_subsrc=RCO_DonateButton&s_src=F7ZWGR00"]Same purpose here.[/URL]. Would you say they're both criminal organizations?
Well, you also said at the time a company/organization commits a crime it's a criminal organization, if that's meant to imply that after the crime has been dealt with, it's not anymore, then the catholic Church should be off the hook sometime, shouldn't it? Otherwise the list of companies you can buy from has to be rather short if you do not want to support criminal organizations.

How long has the american red cross been engaged in illegal activity? Centuries? Millennia?. Once a criminal act has been made its incumbent on the criminal to rectify the situation. Continued criminal behavior or long expanses of time (Centuries,Millennia) constitutes a systemic long term problem.

Given historical data, current historic data we can make a very good conclusion that infact it is a criminal organization. I've harped on the recent issues, should we go back to millions killed under the direction of the chruch?

Oh wait what was the corporate jingle? Thou shall not kill

That doesn't say a whole lot, I didn't read it but I doubt the increase came because people support that sort of activity. For all I know they could support their local priest who is not a pedophile, you know, these exist as well.

The purpose of that reference was to illistrate the churchs ability and desire to raise money. Something I was challenged on based on someone elses definition of a criminal activity. Unless someone wants to step forth and make the claim the catholic church dosent desire to raise money?

That must mean you either support his definition or you use a different definition by which this applies as well. My definition however doesn't say that increasing donations during a scandal make a charity organization a criminal organization.

It does however show that the organisation was in the business of attempting to raise funds.

Neither does the need for money, they could also charge for entering the church, would you prefer that?

might make it easier if they have dues paid at entrance, dont you think? Come to the U.S. Husar have a child and attempt to get them into a catholic school. Ever hear of tithing enevelopes? But I digress...

That's a good thing, isn't it, the priests were made aware of the issues that existed beforehand and that the church does not want pedophile priests. That some priests chose not to adhere to it is an issue that could aonly be changed if the church were allowed/able to scan their thoughts. :dizzy2:

the point is Husar that on the sex scandal it was well documented and known from the Pope down. They should have known better based on thier own laws.

I can give you multiple sources of army soldiers raping people but does that make the whole Army a criminal organization? Don't apply a double standard.

My posts were and are in context of the church, yourself and others have attempted a comparative to non related entities. Are you talking about a standing army 2000 years old that has consistantly commited crimes?

Exactly, those priests violate the laws of the catholic church, while all the others adhere to them, thus the few pedos do not represent the whole organization as they do not even adhere to the laws of the organization, much less represent a majority.

and thats the rub... Because once the abuse is revealed you know, I know, he knows what do you do? Penalize the priest, or penalize the organization that covered it up? I'll take the macro view on that one, but I do understand the convience of cherry picking the fall guys.

Now the cover up is the thing that makes them look worse, I'm not a big fan of the catholic church and I'm about to agree with you that on several places there is a lot wrong with it, but you were saying that all catholics are somehow supporting it, implying that they agree with such policies and I think that's where you are wrong, maybe the heads of the organization are pretty bad people(maybe not) but then you cannot say that some small priest who's only wish is to help people and who may not even know about all the crimes that go on elsewhere is a criminal or voluntarily part of a criminal organization.

Let me clarify since you seem to be pondering what I meant. I believe the catholic church is a criminal organization based on historic behaviors. Supporting that entity, given that fact is supporting a criminal enterprise.

The lynch pin to my argument is historic behaviors. The sex scandal is the latest juicy one, but if one were to skip down memory lane a tad we can find all sorts of ethic and moral short comings all coming from one singualr institution. Not 20 years, not 200 but far more reaching then that.

You would be hardpressed to find a singular entity that has the brutual immoral track record of the catholic church spanning 1500+ years.

Now that was my first try at a serious post in a long time, hope it was somehow worth it. ~;)

It was worth it, because when you post topically and engage in civil exchange your pretty articulate.

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 21:17

You would be hardpressed to find a singular entity that has the brutual immoral track record of the catholic church spanning 1500+ years.

You would be hard pressed to find any modern organization that has existed for almost 2000 years. Your definition is loaded.

The Red Cross, by your definition, would eventually become a criminal organization if it existed over 1 thousand years and succumbed to human failings on occasion.

My posts were and are in context of the church, yourself and others have attempted a comparative to non related entities.

In my opinion you are comparing the church with non-related entities: CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS

In your definition of criminal organization, others are simple letting you know that many other benevolent organizations would fall into the same category. I think the use of these examples is profoundly relevant to our positions.

Don Corleone

12-05-2007, 21:22

Well, Odin, I'm afraid with two pages of detailed references and references to references to references between you and CR & Tuff Stuff McGruff, I'm going to have to start a completely new side discussion with you. I apologize if some of this is repetitious. I promise you that regardless of how you're reading what I write, my intent is to have a pub chat, I'm not poking a stick in your beehive. (Now isn't that metaphor just laden with meaning...:belly: ) Think of us as having a spirited discussion over a couple of Sam Adams.

Is the Church comprised of fallible human beings? Yes. Have they done despicable things over the millenia. Of course. Show me one organization that has been around for as long that hasn't? It's that human element, it gets you every time.

Your point about the accountability of the higher-ups is a valid one. It's the reason I left the Church for 4 years or so. They clearly didn't do enough to enforce their own policies, and as a result, the leadership actually played a role (indirectly, and in some particularly unfortunate cases, directly) in enabling the sort of behavior that gives us all the squeamies. I can't offer any defense on this particular front. They made the decision to look the other way and reassign, and now they have to pay for it with their credibility, until they prove otherwise.

But I find you to be arguing in a contrarian sense in this thread. On the one hand, you argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the single worst criminal organization in the history of mankind. Talk about setting yourself up for a big fall, a simple review of Pol Pot's regime, which lasted a grand total of (oh what was it, 12 years?) would show you how off base you are on that claim. And when they attempt to try new things, institute new mechanisms for spreading the word on how to defeat predatory abuse, you yet again scourge them. Which is it, should they sit back and do nothing, or should they actually try to do something to stop the abuse?

And as for criminal intent, and primary intent... you seem to be making an argument that the Catholic Church's leadership INTENDED for all of this to happen, that they want to enforce a reign of terror. They're not exactly going about it the right way, now are they?

Look, I understand the American Protestant anti-Catholic bias, and the subconcious fears and suspicions that many Americans, who may now have turned to atheism or agnositicism, carry with them into adulthood (the same way people are still afraid of the dark long after they learn there's no such thing as boogiemen). But seriously, you're an intelligent guy. Take a deep breath, and ask yourself about how human institutions tend to work, and is this one all that different? It's a body politic (well, technically, I suppose it's a body religious) that was founded for good (saving mankind's souls) that has done a lot of evil because of the individuals that comprise it.

But hey, if you want to keep reading those Chick Tracts (http://www.chick.com), don't let me stop you, old friend. ~:cheers:

PanzerJaeger

12-05-2007, 21:25

My deepest appologies PJ but you have mistaken me for one of the other posters that cares what you think or thinks your cute.

Priceless! ~:flirt:

I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your rather tired argument (how many times was JAG trounced trying to make this case?) for the benefit of the readers. You're obviously a lost cause.. did Father John take a liking to young Odin? :laugh4:

rvg

12-05-2007, 21:27

...
But hey, if you want to keep reading those Chick Tracts (http://www.chick.com), don't let me stop you, old friend. :cheers:

Ha! Is that loon still spewing his poison? I thought he was dead. Geez, this guy must a hundred years old now.

Ser Clegane

12-05-2007, 21:33

Ha! Is that loon still spewing his poison?

Don't diss chick tracts! :stare: Some of the best entertainment I have seen in the internet.

On a side note - @some participants in this thread:
Play the ball - not the man

Thanks

:bow:

Odin

12-05-2007, 21:33

Well, Odin, I'm afraid with two pages of detailed references and references to references to references between you and CR & Tuff Stuff McGruff, I'm going to have to start a complete side discussion with you.

You, Seamus, RedLeg, Gawain and Pindar about the only orgahs who have in other threads made me rethink my position and actually change it. I welcome any chat with you any time.

But I find you to be arguing in a contrarian sense in this thread. On the one hand, you argue that the Roman Catholic Church is the single worst criminal organization in the history of mankind. Talk about setting yourself up for a big fall, a simple review of Pol Pot's regime, which lasted a grand total of (oh what was it, 12 years?) would show you how off base you are on that claim.

In a historical context how so? Here is an example:

Fourth Council of the Lateran, Pope Innocent preclaims in Canons 3-4. that Catholics who take up the cross to exterminate heretics get salvation.

Completely contradicts "thou shall not kill" That was approx 700+ years before pol pot don

And when they attempt to try new things, institute new mechanisms for spreading the word on how to defeat predatory abuse, you yet again scourge them. Which is it, should they sit back and do nothing, or should they actually try to do something to stop the abuse?

Having to choose between your two proclomation I say stop the abuse, with the cavaet that until its stopped and the criminal prosecuted support should stop.

And as for criminal intent, and primary intent... you seem to be making an argument that the Catholic Church's leadership INTENDED for all of this to happen, that they want to enforce a reign of terror.

Your confusing Intent, with allow.

Take a deep breath, and ask yourself about how human institutions tend to work, and is this one all that different? It's a body politic (well, technically, I suppose it's a body religious) that was founded for good (saving mankind's souls) that has done a lot of evil because of the individuals that comprise it.

Point taken.

But hey, if you want to keep reading those Chick Tracts (http://www.chick.com), don't let me stop you, old friend. :cheers:

:7jester:

Don Corleone

12-05-2007, 21:52

In a historical context how so? Here is an example:

Fourth Council of the Lateran, Pope Innocent preclaims in Canons 3-4. that Catholics who take up the cross to exterminate heretics get salvation.

Completely contradicts "thou shall not kill" That was approx 700+ years before pol pot don

My point was that in the 2000 years the Church has been around, yes, of course they've done some things that they should be ashamed of. But your claim that they're the worst of the worst rings a little hollow. Were they really, I'd imagine they'd have racked up a lot more black marks, or even a few that approach Stalin or Pol Pot's (or Hitler's, for all you Lefties out there) body count.

As for the Fourth Council of the Lateran, you're using a modern translation of Exodus for the 5th commandment. Many scholars dispute this translation and argue 'thou shalt not murder' would be a more accurate translation. Just think about it for a second... the 2 books of the Law, detailing the Mosaic Code of which the Commandments are a summary set, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, have all sorts of passages that not only allow for just killing, but in fact REQUIRE it. Joshua and the nation of Israel displeased God and suffered heavily when they did not slay every last man woman and child among the Canaanites.

Having to choose between your two proclomation I say stop the abuse, with the cavaet that until its stopped and the criminal prosecuted support should stop. And the coloring book is a good faith effort at doing just that. As ironic or even possibly hypocritical as you may find it, they are attempting to convey to 7 year olds why they shouldn't allow themselves to be in isolated conditions with adults in authority (any adults in authority, not just priests). If you'd prefer they get down to brass tacks and put into the coloring book what could happen (and has happened) if they allow themselves to be put into such a compromising position... well....

Your confusing Intent, with allow. Am I, or are you? I've ceded the 'allow' point, and if you think I won't be watchful of Jillian and any future children, think again. But your original posts and subsequent responses to CR and TuffStuff seemed to imply that YOU believed that it was an organized crime, that they were in fact not just covering it up, but encouraging it. If I misinterpreted the thrust of your posts, I apologize. :bow:

:7jester: Thought you'd like that one.

Look, I can certainly see the downside of the church. They do act in ways that are unfathomable to us at times, and I pray frequently that when the tempation to obfuscate comes again, they will have the strength to resist. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. They do a LOT of good. There's a lot of hungry and diseased people that rely on them for the survival of their bodies, not just their souls. And they do light a candle in the darkness and speak out against evil where they see it (even among themselves at times, though they could be a little more forthcoming in this particular area). Let me leave you with this. Suppose I hadn't quit smoking when Jillian was born. Would it be evil of me to tell Jillian not to smoke when she got old enough to? Hypocritical, maybe, but evil? Of malintent? Or maybe, I just understand enough about evil and human weakness that I know what I'm talking about and want to save her from something I've suffered from?

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 21:52

You, Seamus, RedLeg, Gawain and Pindar about the only orgahs who have in other threads made me rethink my position and actually change it. I welcome any chat with you any time.

I think Panzer and I are in our early or mid 20's. Those guys are all family man professionals! Give us a break. You're in a video game forum, expect to argue with kids, too.

Xiahou

12-05-2007, 22:07

Fourth Council of the Lateran, Pope Innocent preclaims in Canons 3-4. that Catholics who take up the cross to exterminate heretics get salvation.

Completely contradicts "thou shall not kill" Wait, you're using the Church's "rule" about "thou shall now kill" and contrasting it with canons and that using an apparent conflict to prove criminality? :dizzy2:

You've created you own "criminal organization" definition, custom designed to fit the Church and then create restrictions as needed to see that it only continues to apply to the Church. Someone points out another charity with problems? Well, they haven't been doing it for 2000 years. Oh so that's the requirement now?

You can believe whatever nonsense you want, don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your shifting standards and manufactured definitions though. :no:

Don Corleone

12-05-2007, 22:10

I think Panzer and I are in our early or mid 20's. Those guys are all family man professionals! Give us a break. You're in a video game forum, expect to argue with kids, too.

Hey, I can be childish with the best of them. Just start a gun control thread and tell me that I have no right to protect Mrs. Corleone or Jillian, and watch the tantrums begin. :furious3:

ICantSpellDawg

12-05-2007, 22:14

Hey, I can be childish with the best of them. Just start a gun control thread and tell me that I have no right to protect Mrs. Corleone or Jillian, and watch the tantrums begin. :furious3:

I was about to start a gun control thread with that as the premise "Don Corleone should not be allowed to protect family. Discuss"

PanzerJaeger

12-05-2007, 22:26

I think Panzer and I are in our early or mid 20's. Those guys are all family man professionals! Give us a break. You're in a video game forum, expect to argue with kids, too.

20 here and I'm adorable... :saint:

Blodrast

12-05-2007, 22:45

20 here and I'm adorable... :saint:

Now, don't be disingenuous, he only said "cute", not "adorable"!

Papewaio

12-05-2007, 23:30

First. Doing charity works does not negate criminal activities nor does it mean the charity is not a criminal organisation. I'm sure the mafia and other organised crime can be found that have done charity work and/or looked after their local communities.

Second. Crimes done within a organisation does not make it a criminal organisation. A criminal organisation would have to be designed primarily to make money by circumventing the law... back to bootlegging mafia. The Catholic Church is not primarily designed to be a criminal organisation, although in Communist Russia and the Middle East it might have been designated as such because of its belief system. Also the very size of the Catholic Church in some regions is such that they could have changed the law to accommodate themselves or their 'wayward' brethren. With enough numbers laws change, but I don't think I have seen the Catholic Church actively trying to legalise child sex. It should be ashamed however about the lengths it went to hide and deny these appalling things and the lengths it still goes to deny restitution in some cases.

What the Catholic Church did wrong was to hide the dangers for so long. Sure don't reveal confessions, but at least warn the parishes that they should look at for their children. After all any organisation that gives unfettered access to children is going to be seen as a velvet gold mine for child molestors.

The problem I have with confessions is that a) I assumed when you confess that you apologise at least to God and you don't repeat the offence. Something that is apparently not true. b) That child molestors are often sick and the ability to talk about it is somthing they need to do. However the act of confession and punishment might have enabled them more then we realise. They did the crime, did the time and then felt free to repeat.

Odin

12-06-2007, 00:14

Wait, you're using the Church's "rule" about "thou shall now kill" and contrasting it with canons and that using an apparent conflict to prove criminality? :dizzy2:

Perfectly simple to understand dont you think? He created a condition contradictory to the law of his own god. If that isnt criminal what is? :rolleyes:

Someone points out another charity with problems? Well, they haven't been doing it for 2000 years. Oh so that's the requirement now?

Given that the church is the example, its part of the requirement. But feel free to make up your own conditions in comparisson to the catholic church Xiahou, I wont shout hypocrisy. :rolleyes:

You can believe whatever nonsense you want, don't expect anyone else to be convinced by your shifting standards and manufactured definitions though. :no:

How arrogant, let me guess a practicing christian Xiahou? :rolleyes:

Odin

12-06-2007, 00:17

I think Panzer and I are in our early or mid 20's. Those guys are all family man professionals! Give us a break. You're in a video game forum, expect to argue with kids, too.

My comment to Don had nothing to do with you or PJ at all. Why you would think that is beyond me considering I spent a good 8-12 minutes replying back and forth to you today.

At no time during our tit for tat did I consider your age, maturity or professional status your way off base.

Odin

12-06-2007, 00:33

My point was that in the 2000 years the Church has been around, yes, of course they've done some things that they should be ashamed of. But your claim that they're the worst of the worst rings a little hollow. Were they really, I'd imagine they'd have racked up a lot more black marks, or even a few that approach Stalin or Pol Pot's (or Hitler's, for all you Lefties out there) body count.

That would depend on your point of view. Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot (from my limited recoleection) didnt use catholic doctrine as thier guiding light in there actions.

Were talking about the catholic church here and thier choices through out history, at least I am. I've read the other arguments on comparative entities all of which ring just as hollow as conviently each dosent discuss the catholic church's behavior historically.

As for the Fourth Council of the Lateran, you're using a modern translation of Exodus for the 5th commandment. Many scholars dispute this translation and argue 'thou shalt not murder' would be a more accurate translation.

I'll concede this point, if I can get a concession that the 5th commandments translation literally still hasnt filtered down to the masses. Like it or not he made it policy to kill or murder you pick the adjective.

And the coloring book is a good faith effort at doing just that. As ironic or even possibly hypocritical as you may find it, they are attempting to convey to 7 year olds why they shouldn't allow themselves to be in isolated conditions with adults in authority (any adults in authority, not just priests). If you'd prefer they get down to brass tacks and put into the coloring book what could happen (and has happened) if they allow themselves to be put into such a compromising position... well....

I'll make a concession on this point, without a cavaet

But your original posts and subsequent responses to CR and TuffStuff seemed to imply that YOU believed that it was an organized crime, that they were in fact not just covering it up, but encouraging it.

A long term willingness to not change the systemic failure in the sex abuse case is tantamount to encouraging the practice IMHO. This wasnt a news flash for the catholic hierarchy they dam well knew what was going on and did little to correct the problem.

Look, I can certainly see the downside of the church. They do act in ways that are unfathomable to us at times, and I pray frequently that when the tempation to obfuscate comes again, they will have the strength to resist. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. They do a LOT of good. There's a lot of hungry and diseased people that rely on them for the survival of their bodies, not just their souls. And they do light a candle in the darkness and speak out against evil where they see it (even among themselves at times, though they could be a little more forthcoming in this particular area). Let me leave you with this. Suppose I hadn't quit smoking when Jillian was born. Would it be evil of me to tell Jillian not to smoke when she got old enough to? Hypocritical, maybe, but evil? Of malintent? Or maybe, I just understand enough about evil and human weakness that I know what I'm talking about and want to save her from something I've suffered from?

Your the 1st poster thats actually moved the discussion back to center and allowed the positive to somewhat temper the negative. Perhaps my absolute disgust affects my ability to put it all in perspective. Maybe I'm flat out wrong, but if I view acts by the catholic church with a mamoth amount of skepticism and reflective disdain its based on thier criminal activity.

Of which I believe they get the 1st place award based on historical evidence. Im about argued out though because I am about to start repeating myself and my reply to Xiahou was evidence Im getting personally annoyed (appologies Xiahou).

I'll still read replies but my position hasnt changed nor will it. The comic books are just that a god dam joke (pun intended)

seireikhaan

12-06-2007, 01:19

Odin: Certainly, I, like Don, can understand your disgust with the Catholic Church, as I've witnessed the effects of some of its own blunders/errors/whatever word you want to use in my owns state, where one particular diocese has actually filed for bankruptcy primarily because of lawsuits. However, there are a few problems with your historical evidence: first of all, many religions have advocated the use of violence in the case of heathens/infidels/non-believers. Second, your judging the modern institution based on what has happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. Are we to say the same regarding the United States and its treatment of Native Americans, which is actually more recent than many of the Church's most egregious offenses. Many of these worst offenses happened in the middle ages, when the Church was incredibly powerful. If I may quote a famous saying, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely". As Don stated, the Church is composed entirely of human beings, all of whom have weaknesses, especially if given a huge degree of power. As for the comic, I'd say that its better than telling kids nothing. Keep in mind that most kids at that age aren't exactly going to respond well to, say, more graphic depictions.

Oh, and Hitler, from my knowledge, did attempt to turn Jesus into a sort of "soldier against Judaism" to help support his reign. Stalin and Pol Pot I would doubt much.

A long term willingness to not change the systemic failure in the sex abuse case is tantamount to encouraging the practice IMHO. This wasnt a news flash for the catholic hierarchy they dam well knew what was going on and did little to correct the problem.
And I guess we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this point, but I'd disagree with you on that point. Perhaps your not aware of the fact that the Church is having a lot of difficulty just in getting enough priests to cover the dioceses? Especially in rural areas, a single priest will sometimes have to work upwards of three parishes. Now, I personally think they could solve some of these problems by letting priests marry, and allow women to become Deacons and priests as well. But alas, that might be for a different thread.