Posted on 04/09/2002 5:09:55 PM PDT by Lady In Blue
The only reason this is so hard to believe is because the media is finally getting something right.
Anyone who leaves their child alone with a priest ought to be charged with child abuse. The only thing possibly worse is leaving a child alone with a public school teacher.
Hank
And people claim that I live in a world where nearly everybody is a criminal.
If not,excuse me.Now,to get on to business.I've known and met many wonderful priests in my life.They have been holy and taught what the Church teaches and I would trust them with children ANYTIME because I know what kind of priests they are.There have many married people who I would not trust my cat with.If you really read the entire article you would have seen that there are far fewer pedophile priests than there are among married men.You ought to be ashamed to blame all priests for the sins of a few.I do not blame all protestant ministers, for sins against the flesh,of a few.Lastly,I remember that we are all sinners,in one way or another.I think that we should all pray for each other.
This piece present us with an opportunity to study extremely artful
propaganda, which, by crudely appealing to its apparent audience,
actually makes the case for an entirely different constituency.
Consider the following rather obvious propaganda techniques:
First, there are two blatantly straw-man questions, which, taken
together, draw attention away from the real issue:
1. Is the clergy full of pedophiles?
2. Has the Church covered up heinous acts and not done enough to root
out the problem?
3. And are celibacy and an all-male priesthood holdovers from the Dark
Ages that fan the flames of lust?
The first question is not only obviously false, such obvious falseness
requires a reasonable reader to accept the opposite premise.
The third question, although less obviously false, is not even a
legitimate question, but rather an inflammatory statement, masquerading
as a question, which leads a reasonable reader to accept its
apparent opposite.
The second question is a legitimate question, and is perhaps the
most important question which needs to be answered about this
terrible situation. Unfortunately, since it contains the propaganda
phrases "heinous acts," and root out;" and since it is sandwiched
between the other improper questions, lead serious people to
ignore it.
the term "pedophile priest" is largely a misnomer when applied to all
cases of sexual impropriety.
This phrase sets up the name "pedophile priest" as the major
issue, when it is not any serious issue, at all. This is the classic
"straw man" propaganda technique.
Yes, some priests have engaged in pedophilia -- exploitation of children
below the age of puberty - but their number is very small. By and large, the
scandals have involved sexual relations between priests and adolescents -
mostly boys - which suggests that homosexuality is involved in most cases.
Again, "pedophilia" (see further definitions below) is used to minimize
the problem. Then, the unsupported claim that "...the number is very small."
This idea leads the reader to feel that "sexual relations between priests
and adolescents..." is not nearly as serious. (Note also, the implicit
idea that "homosexuality is involved," seems to be relatively benign.
After a sex scandal in the early 1990s, the Archdiocese of Chicago opened
records of the 2,252 priests who had served there over a period of 40 years.
Less than 2% had been accused of sexual misconduct with a minor, and only
one was alleged to be a pedophile.
The factoid that "Less than 2% had been accused of sexual misconduct
with a minor," is essentially meaningless: Some will have been
accused falsely, some will have committed the crime, but have not
been accused, and some will have committed the same offense, but
with someone 18 or over. The idea that "only one...a pedophile."
rests on the strict definition, below.
The whole effect is to minimize a very serious problem. One must consider
how many priests sinned, but were not accused; how many children did
each offender ruin; and what did the Church do about it?
Jenkins said there is no evidence that the rate of pedophilia among Catholic
priests is higher than it is among clergy of religions that do not have a rule of
celibacy - or in other professions.
This is essentially a meaningless statement-- its opposite could be
stated as legitimately. It only serves to minimize the problem. This is
called spreading the blame.
the problem of pedophilia and child sexual abuse has also plagued the
Boy Scouts and Big Brothers organizations.
The word "plagued" is contentless. That there have been incidents
in both Big Brothers and Boy Scouts is true, but irrelevant, unless those
organizations have also covered up the incidents, and merely transferred
the guilty adults, and failed to remove them from positions of trust.
In most abuse cases, the culprit is a close family member or acquaintance, he said.
This is a classic "non-sequitur."
The difference between pedophiles and homosexuals,
This is not only not at issue, the statement is ridiculous, in that "pedophiles"
may be either hetero- or homo- sexual.
It certainly is not about pedophiles, who represent only a tiny minority of
priests, perhaps one out of every 2- or 3000. While there are serious problems
with abuse and sexual misconduct, they have nothing to do with pedophilia.
This is not only an unsupported and unsupportable statement, it also
returns the reader to the straw man argument that the issue is the
name "pedophilia."
97 or 98% of priests are not involved with minors, which makes the
issue sound rather different. The glass is 97% full.
Again the false concept that, if most priests are not guilty, then
there is no big problem. " Also, the problem is not that 3% of
priests are "involved with minors," but that they are guilty of
criminal, sinful behavior which causes terrible harm.
most misconduct cases with minors involve young people of 14-18.
There is a technical term here, ephebophilia, meaning sexual interest in
those around the age of puberty, or older.
"Misconduct" is a propaganda word, which constitutes an attempt
to make criminal, sinful, and vile behavior seem benign. Presuming
that "ephebophilia" is, in actuality, a legitimate description, its
use constitutes a distinction, without a difference. Using a Greek
word cannot legitimize the act.
It seems silly to me, since in most societies, this is a normal age for marriage, so
why can we call it a psychiatric disturbance?
This sentence begins with another non-sequitur, it is also a "straw man."
Whether the behavior in question is "a psychiatric disturbance," or
not, is not at issue here.
the important message that most "pedophile" cases involve no
such behavior - they involve young people of 16, not 6. The proper word for a
man who has sex with a boy of 16 or 17 is homosexuality.
This is very interesting. The false issue of the name pedophilia leads
the reader to feel that evil acts labeled "homosexuality" may not be
so bad, It sets up the "liberal" reader (who has chosen to view
"homosexuality" as a positive "good") to begin to view the whole
horrible subject of priests and children as a good thing, if only the
children involved are over 14.
have to take account of everyone who was a priest or religious in the
United States in the last 40 years or so - what is that, perhaps
200,000 individuals?
This guess is not only unsupported, it is also irrelevant. Members of
"religious," orders are not at issue, here, only priests.
If we assume that 2 or 2.5% of clergy are involved with minors - which seems
likely - that suggests an offending population around 4- or 5000. That number
is well in keeping with all the cases that have come to light in the last 20 years
or so.
IF this figure is accurate (and I personally do not think it is--I certainly
hope not) consider how many thousands of children have been
seriously damaged, perhaps lost their souls, because of it. Again,
we are not discussing "offending." This is not about not bathing
often enough. We are discussing a horrible evil.
I would point to the many cases of offending clergy in denominations that
allow marriage.
Of course, we have read of such sin, in other denominations.
There are some differences, though:
1. I have not heard about anywhere near so many.
2. I have not heard that there have been massive cover-ups.
3. In most protestant churches, the "clergy" does not wield
as much religious power.
4. In most protestant churches, the private "confessional is
not institutionalized--one would not normally find a child
confessing his/her most intimate sexual emotions, hence,
vulnerability.
Make it clear that mistakes have been made, victims have been hurt
NO, NO, NO! "Mistakes were made" minimizes the crime.
These acts are EVIL.
I would also ask liberal critics of the Church to think very, very seriously about
what they are doing - do they really, really want to turn this whole affair into
an attack on homosexual men who have sex with teen-agers? What would that
idea do to other issues in which gay activism is deeply involved, e.g. concerning
gay adoptions, gays in the Scout movement etc? Many gays may dislike the
Church hierarchy, but do they really want to see an anti-gay panic stemming
from this affair?
This is the "hook," I think, for liberals, etc. If they have swallowed
the false premise that the problem is "homosexuality, not pedophilia,"
they may not merely stop "Catholic bashing," they may start
advocating the evil behavior of child molesting priests as
positively beneficial.
DG
Read about these examples of Child Sexual Molestation by Protestant Clergy. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you're done let me know and I'll give you links to more documented cases
I wish to say, for the record, that is is no less vile, for a "protestant" clergyman to molest a child, than it is for a Catholic priest. DG
If you know someone personally, and are absolutely certain they are good and decent people, I would agree with you. But, many people felt about those priests who have since been endicted, that they knew them and knew they were holy and taught what the Church teaches. I know I spoke in gerenalities, but, on the other hand, you just cannot be too careful about your children.
Hank
If your God, the one that protects Bishops and Cardinals that protect pedophiles were the true God, I would be an athiest. My God and my church is opposed to homosexual predators and pedophiles, and my sympathy is with all the victims of those monsters, not the organization that protected them all these years, or at least the individuals within the organization that did.
I know you didn't mean what you said, and I understand how these things are emotionally charged. Sorry if my approach upset you. I have nothing against Catholics. I even like you.
Hank
I meant what I said and there was no emotional charge to it. You enjoy playing with people's minds and insulting their belief systems. If you think that makes you a Christian it doesn't. I know you don't like Catholics and you don't like me. Your mean-spirited posts tell it all. I'm not buying what you're selling.
I meant what I said and there was no emotional charge to it. You enjoy playing with people's minds and insulting their belief systems. If you think that makes you a Christian it doesn't. I know you don't like Catholics and you don't like me. Your mean-spirited posts tell it all. I'm not buying what you're selling.
I confess I have no idea what our "previous encounter" was, but from what you said, I suspect it had to do with the confusion between "superstition" and "faith" as the Bible describes, which has nothing to do with accepting something without understanding it.
I also confess that I frequently pose questions, and make statements meant to be provocative, which are sometime annoying or irritating to those who misunderstand my intention. I also admit it does not worry me much, since most people are just dying to find something to be annoyed about, a view I find both sad and amusing.
You do not seem to belong to this group, however. I do not know anything about you other than what you say, but what you say, you say well, and with a great deal of genuine feeling and conviction. I suspect you are a woman of character, and not afraid to speak your mind. Since that is all there is to know, why would I not like you. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, don't you?
Anyway, it's all only words, and you may believe what you like, but, please don't let anything I say, or for that matter, anything anyone says upset you. Rom 14:5 "... Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." Stand by your convictions and don't let old reprobates like me bother you.
I'm not at all concerned, by the way, whether you believe me or not. But, please believe this, what other people say is not really important, only what you know, and your own sincere seeking of the truth matter, and if everyone says bad things about you, and you are doing right, too bad for everyone else.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.