RE: How did the Inquisition choose "witches"?
SUBTOPIC: Rebuttal and Opposing View
※→ Freedom Crows Nest, et al,
And I don't care if you're agnostic, or atheist.
(COMMENT)
※→ Freedom Crows Nest: The introductory commentary was not written exclusively for you; but, for all the others (et al) that might read it. To help clarify the source and context; not as an advocate, but as an outside observer.
If you don't see the obvious elephant in the room, then there's something wrong with you. Sorry, but that's the truth.
(COMMENT)
Oh, I understand quite well; I did not miss the Elephant. There is that which is spoken, there is that which is implied, and -- there is that where the context is ambiguous.
You have the same blinders on that religious people have. Deny, deny, deny. It's time to stop denying stuff, and wake up to the reality that going on all over the world.
(COMMENT)
I neither argue against the implication that the Catholic Organization is flawed at the core; nor do I subscribe to that allegation. I merely take a rational view. There is no particular cloak of evil that shrouds the Catholic organization.
France, alone, has found 333,000 cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests. And that's just France. Extrapolate that over the world, and there are very many millions of cases of sexual abuse by priests upon minors. Usually little boys. Show me another religion that has such a widespread problem.
(COMMENT)
I find it hard to separate expanded, sensationalized, and exaggerated as the free-for-all and pile-on → of stories cascade in on the Catholic Organization.
According to the best available data (which is pretty good, coming from a comprehensive report by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in 2004, as well as several other studies), 4 percent of Catholic priests in the U.S. sexually victimized minors during the past half century. No evidence has been published at this time which states this number is higher than clergy from other religious traditions. The 4 percent figure appears lower than school teachers during the same time frame, and certainly less than offenders in the general population of men. Research states that over 20 percent of American women and about 15 percent of American men were sexually violated by an adult when they were children. Sexual victimization is tragically fairly common in the general population, but luckily these numbers have been dropping in recent years.
So this statement, "And as far as the Catholic organization is concerned, there was NO single “cause” of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests that could be identified" is false and very misleading. What does "no single cause" mean?
(COMMENT)
There is not one action, phenomenon, or condition that can be attributed to the cause of sexual abuse in the ranks of the Catholic Organization.
You can find an example of this source on page 75 (Conclusions), of the published study:
The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010
You're not denying that it's happening, you're just saying they can't find a cause.
(COMMENT)
Yes. There is nothing sinister in this position. Any lawyer will tell their client to "stop talking."
The cause, obviously, is that they forbid priests to marry or have normal consenting sex with adults. Priests are men. They have hormones. The Church attracts homosexual religious men, who think that their lack of interest in women is a sign to become a priest. And then they repress their sexual urges even more, while being exposed to innocent little boys. They want to suck a cock. But it's too risky with adults, so they prey on the easy pickings that won't get them in trouble.
(COMMENT)
This is a compound and complex set of assumptions. I do not know of any study, report, investigation, or inquiry that proposes any of these assumptions as undeniable evidence. That is not to say that in prosecutorial closing arguments, you might hear this as part of the means of persuasion.
And contrary to your opinion, they have not done anything to rectify it. When someone is aware of a problem, and they continue to let it happen with no effort to rectify it, they are as guilty as the priests who suck the little boys cocks. And in fact, they made the rules, that promote this situation in the first place.
(COMMENT)
Excerpt from : National Council of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) Action on Sexual Abuse, ibid, Page 77
(Quote) In the years after 1985, the staff counsel for the NCCB worked with diocesan leaders to promote a direct and responsible course of intervention when reports of incidents of sexual abuse were made, with a particular emphasis on psychological treatment for the priest accused of abuse. The NCCB began training programs for vicars, encouraged the development of explicit policies, and distribution strategies for responding to litigation. In addition to being called on to respond individually to cases of their own priests whose sexual behavior involved the abuse of minors, diocesan leaders then had access to information from professionals and academics regarding options in response to this behavior. Overall, prompt psychological treatment for the priest was seen as the best course of action and became the primary intervention. (End Quote)
I do not think your statement here is actually accurate. But the report is available.
The bishops do it too. And I'm willing to bet good money that the Pope does it as well. This is the lifestyle that they have known their entire existence. And since God doesn't punish any of them, they probably feel that they're entitled to suck all the little cocks they can. God, by not punishing them, encourages that behavior.
(COMMENT)
That is supposition for which I do not see any evidence in that pattern of behavior. What data can you share with us that supports this statement?
(∑Ω)
I tried hard not to make this an
ad Hominem response. None of this is a direct attack against you, but the material offered.
I can see you are passionate about this subject matter. But again, don't get caught up in the fabric of extended, exaggerated, and sensationalized material.
Sticking to my original opening statement I believe the majority of this discussion thread is "absolute" non-sense
! And I offer my reasoning for it.
Most Respectfully,
R
www.nbcnews.com
www.bbc.com
www.npr.org
