1985 Ratzinger letter resisted defrocking abusive priests

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

again, i ask:  does the eastern church, which doesn't force celibacy, have the same widespread problem?

Too hard to tell......they may just be better at hiding it......

nice job of creating a cloud of doubt without the presence of an accusation, jerk.

in other words:  there is no evidence the eastern rite has the same wide spread problem, and the reason is that they (correctly) don't make celibacy a criteria for the clergy.  There is no biblical requirement for celibacy among church leadership, full stop, so it is wrong for the western rite to require celibacy of their clergy. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it is no secret that the percentage of homosexuals in the western rite is much much higher than the general population

[John Dibble]

requiring celibacy for aspire priests in the western wing (forgot what it is called) of the Catholic Church is the main cause of this problem, IMO.  I highly doubt the Catholic Church has the same problem in their Eastern wing where celibacy is not a requirement.  In the bible, celibacy was never a requirement of the clergy, full stop.  IMO, forcing celibacy encourages homosexuals to take an interest in the priesthood and you end up with widespread problems such as these.

You do realize that homosexuality and pedophilia are not the same thing, right?

yes, but they also can overlap in some cases.  But, understand, I am NOT blaming the pedophilia directly on the widespread homosexuality within the Catholic clergy, rather I am blaming the widespread homosexuality within the Catholic clergy on the unscriptural forced celibacy on the clergy.

Yes, they can overlap, but it's useful in conversation to make the distinction between the two because they conjure up very different images in most people's minds. The problem that's supposedly widespread has to do with pedophilia rather than your run of the mill homosexuality between consenting adults. Just something you might want to consider for future conversation on the topic to avoid unnecessary confrontation.

I do agree that the celibacy thing might be a contributing factor, but it may only seem that way because it scares off a number of heterosexuals (my former step-father wanted to be a priest before he discovered just how much he liked women, for instance) which just changes the ratio rather than actually making more homosexuals interested in joining the priesthood. I do know that there are cases of homosexuals becoming priests or pastors for other Christian sects, and later being found out as doing the deeds. (not necessarily with kids) Clergy is a good cover for that kind of thing, celibacy being a requirement or not. Let me put it this way - would you find it unusual for a clergyman in your church to be unmarried at the age of, say, forty? More specifically, would you find it more or less unusual in comparison to someone who wasn't a clergyman?

Also, you might want to consider the matter of how Catholic churches are organized. I could be wrong but based on my casual observation it seems to me like there might be more interaction between the priests and the younger members of the church in Catholic churches than in other Christian sects. (if someone who has more info could comment for clarification it would be appreciated) If that's the case pedophiles may simply see this and many being rather predatory decide it's a good way to get what they want. The Catholic clergy also seems to be much more organized and structured than most, and the possibility of getting protection when caught might also factor in.

It also may just be that the Catholic instances of abuse are simply getting more exposure in the media so it only seems that it's more widespread than in other Christian sects. (the coverups by the organization may be the reason for this) The psychological principle for it is called the availability heuristic.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dunno. I don't think anyone has any good data about it.

it is no secret that the percentage of homosexuals in the western rite is much much higher than the general population

What statistics do you have to support this? Again, this goes back to the availability heuristic - are you basing this just on news reports, or on some actual scientifically gathered statistics?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

it is no secret that the percentage of homosexuals in the western rite is much much higher than the general population

Did you hear that at the coffee social after Church, Sunday?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Yes, they can overlap, but it's useful in conversation to make the distinction between the two because they conjure up very different images in most people's minds. The problem that's supposedly widespread has to do with pedophilia rather than your run of the mill homosexuality between consenting adults. Just something you might want to consider for future conversation on the topic to avoid unnecessary confrontation.

as if one sexual perversion can't spawn other sexual perversions?!

----

I do agree that the celibacy thing might be a contributing factor, but it may only seem that way because it scares off a number of heterosexuals.   (my former step-father wanted to be a priest before he discovered just how much he liked women, for instance) which just changes the ratio rather than actually making more homosexuals interested in joining the priesthood.

wasn't that my exact point?

---

I do know that there are cases of homosexuals becoming priests or pastors for other Christian sects, and later being found out as doing the deeds. (not necessarily with kids) Clergy is a good cover for that kind of thing, celibacy being a requirement or not.

unless those sects have similar celibacy restrictions, or opening accept homosexuality, I highly doubt you'll find any Christian sect  with anywhere near the percentage of homosexual clergy as the western rite.  The Catholic Church has basically winked at homosexuality within their ranks, whereas sects following more biblical guidelines don’t tolerate such actions and would quickly purge the ranks of such behavior.
---

Let me put it this way - would you find it unusual for a clergyman in your church to be unmarried at the age of, say, forty? More specifically, would you find it more or less unusual in comparison to someone who wasn't a clergyman?

I don’t know any declared celibates, in or out of the clergy.  Though my church obviously doesn’t shun celibacy, rather we leave it between the individual and God, just as we do any other spiritual gift.
---

Also, you might want to consider the matter of how Catholic churches are organized. I could be wrong but based on my casual observation it seems to me like there might be more interaction between the priests and the younger members of the church in Catholic churches than in other Christian sects.  (if someone who has more info could comment for clarification it would be appreciated) If that's the case pedophiles may simply see this and many being rather predatory decide it's a good way to get what they want. The Catholic clergy also seems to be much more organized and structured than most, and the possibility of getting protection when caught might also factor in.
 

Well, my pastor teaches the high school bible study, so he is very active within the youth programs.  But my church is not naive enough to allow any one adult to be alone for any length of time with any child other than their own.  Nor would I allow myself to be alone with any kids in our church without another adult present.
What I think you’re referring to is the altar boys in the Catholic church being left in the presence of a single priest.  But such a situation has never been allowed in our church, and I’ve been going there since the spring of 1993.  My pastor just has too much sense to even allow that kind of a setup.
---

It also may just be that the Catholic instances of abuse are simply getting more exposure in the media so it only seems that it's more widespread than in other Christian sects.

Your thinly veiled innuendo is pure conjecture.

---

it is no secret that the percentage of homosexuals in the western rite is much much higher than the general population

What statistics do you have to support this? Again, this goes back to the availability heuristic - are you basing this just on news reports, or on some actual scientifically gathered statistics?

Didn’t you just admit that heterosexuals like your step-dad are discouraged from seeking ordination because of the celibacy rules?  But, if you don’t trust the conclusions of your common sense, then google it, it’s been widely admitted within the Catholic Church and individual clergy and leaders of Catholic seminaries have made public statements affirming it.  Estimates of homosexuality from the insiders range from a low of 35% to as high as 65%.

[John Dibble]

Yes, they can overlap, but it's useful in conversation to make the distinction between the two because they conjure up very different images in most people's minds. The problem that's supposedly widespread has to do with pedophilia rather than your run of the mill homosexuality between consenting adults. Just something you might want to consider for future conversation on the topic to avoid unnecessary confrontation.

as if one sexual perversion can't spawn other sexual perversions?!

We're not talking about developing a bondage fetish here. True pedophiles (typically the ones that are repeat offenders over long periods of time) are hard wired that way - you don't just decide you're into little kids. There's plenty of scientifically gathered psychological data on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wasn't that my exact point?[/quote]

If it was it wasn't exactly clear that it was the case. My point in this was that without the celibacy requirement there might be more Catholic priests in terms of total numbers, and that the celibacy requirement reduces that number and affects the ratio in that way rather than possibly attracting more homosexuals that it otherwise would.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

unless those sects have similar celibacy restrictions, or opening accept homosexuality, I highly doubt you'll find any Christian sect  with anywhere near the percentage of homosexual clergy as the western rite.[/quote]

"Highly doubt" doesn't make something true. Again, some actual evidence would be far better than supposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think you're going to get much argument from me or many others here that the Catholic Church has handled this whole situation rather poorly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don’t know any declared celibates, in or out of the clergy.  Though my church obviously doesn’t shun celibacy, rather we leave it between the individual and God, just as we do any other spiritual gift.[/quote]

Ok, you don't know any celibates. So? I didn't ask you if you knew any. Also, I asked on YOUR thoughts on specific types of individuals, not on your church's. It's a pretty simple question - would you find it more, less, or equally odd (or not odd at all if you like) for someone to be celibate if they were clergy compared to if they were not. Please answer the actual question this time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, that's the situation to which I am referring. As I said many pedophiles are rather predatory so they seek situations where they'll be able to be alone with their prospective victims. If the Catholic Church's way of doing things is more congruent to this it might be a better explanation than the celibacy argument. (though they admittedly both could be a contributing factor)

Your church's policy is also quite reasonable, btw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your thinly veiled innuendo is pure conjecture.[/quote]

Not conjecture so much as stating a possibility for consideration. On the other hand your celibacy hypothesis is conjecture since you have gone so far - where are your valid statistics for supporting it? The best you've provided are what seem to be casual estimates based on anecdotal data, and even then you've failed to provide data for other sects to compare it to!

Also, there is no innuendo. Stop reading into things that aren't there. If I wanted to insult you I'd make no attempts to veil it, thinly or otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What statistics do you have to support this? Again, this goes back to the availability heuristic - are you basing this just on news reports, or on some actual scientifically gathered statistics?
[/quote]

Didn’t you just admit that heterosexuals like your step-dad are discouraged from seeking ordination because of the celibacy rules?  But, if you don’t trust the conclusions of your common sense, then google it, it’s been widely admitted within the Catholic Church and individual clergy and leaders of Catholic seminaries have made public statements affirming it.  Estimates of homosexuality from the insiders range from a low of 35% to as high as 65%.[/quote]

1. Former step-dad. Guy cheated on my mom multiple times - got the boot. She's got a husband who treats her right now.
2. Coming to conclusions based on "common sense" is not scientific, and often leads to incorrect conclusions. History has shown this repeatedly. I try to avoid it. Data is preferable.
3. That's a pretty wide variation on those estimates, which should raise some rather obvious flags. Did those insiders make those estimates scientifically or did they do so casually? Casually made statistics hold no value whatsoever. What possible reason
4. Where are your statistics for other Christian sects and their clergy? In other words what are you basing your comparison on?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

We're not talking about developing a bondage fetish here. True pedophiles (typically the ones that are repeat offenders over long periods of time) are hard wired that way - you don't just decide you're into little kids. There's plenty of scientifically gathered psychological data on this.

 

doesn’t matter if they’re hard wired or not, it is still a perversion.  And perversion begets perversion.

---

If it was it wasn't exactly clear that it was the case. My point in this was that without the celibacy requirement there might be more Catholic priests in terms of total numbers, and that the celibacy requirement reduces that number and affects the ratio in that way rather than possibly attracting more homosexuals that it otherwise would.

It both reduces heterosexuals form joining the clergy as well as encouraging homosexuals to join, because it has created an known atmosphere where homosexual activity is cloaked.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Highly doubt" doesn't make something true. Again, some actual evidence would be far better than supposition.

Seriously, your repeated call for evidence has long crossed the line of common sense – do you not realize that you’re asking me to prove a negative?!

----

Ok, you don't know any celibates. So? I didn't ask you if you knew any. Also, I asked on YOUR thoughts on specific types of individuals, not on your church's. It's a pretty simple question - would you find it more, less, or equally odd (or not odd at all if you like) for someone to be celibate if they were clergy compared to if they were not. Please answer the actual question this time.

Not sure how to answer other than to say I do not associate celibacy with the clergy anymore than I associate it with the laity.  I have never had any reason to suspect that a true gift of celibacy is more common the clergy than it is among common spirit-filled believers.  I do believe in the gift of celibacy (even in this modern day), I just have no reason to believe the gift is concentrated more in the clergy than in the laity.
And even among the celibate, scripture still gives them the right to marry if they wish – it’s not like God has made them incapable of marrying and having sex.  Rather God just simply gives the celibate the power to control their sexual thoughts.

---

Yes, that's the situation to which I am referring. As I said many pedophiles are rather predatory so they seek situations where they'll be able to be alone with their prospective victims. If the Catholic Church's way of doing things is more congruent to this it might be a better explanation than the celibacy argument. (though they admittedly both could be a contributing factor)

agreed
---

Not conjecture so much as stating a possibility for consideration.

It’s an innuendo in that without evidence of widespread charges of pedophilia, there is no reason to suspect pedophilia.  It carries no more weight than me conjecturing and placing on the table for consideration whether or not you got it on with your mother every odd Tuesday and Thursday while you were 15.  It is a very serious charge and the cloud of suspicion shouldn’t be placed over anyone’s head without sufficient evidence to do so.
---

 

On the other hand your celibacy hypothesis is conjecture since you have gone so far - where are your valid statistics for supporting it?

My Exhibit A is the bible - They’re in violation of scripture, making themselves the arbitration of whom is to have their sexual desires suppressed – something the bible sternly warns results in sexual immorality, which is supported by my Exhibit B – the widespread occurrences of such cases within the western rite.
---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

3. That's a pretty wide variation on those estimates, which should raise some rather obvious flags. Did those insiders make those estimates scientifically or did they do so casually? Casually made statistics hold no value whatsoever.

I think leaders of church seminaries have a pretty good idea.  Also, there is a lot of other evidence like the fact that priests are acquiring AIDS at a rate four times the overall male population.  There are also statements from high ranking bishops that the church is a constant struggle to make sure a majority of gays are not appointed to the level of bishop. And statements from other catholic bishops stating that in some dioceses, the majority of the leadership is controlled by homosexuals.
And random surveys of priests regarding sexual orientation have less than a 20% response rate and the results still come back at 15% homosexuality.  Why are 80% not responding if not for fear of being exposed?  If you survey my church’s staff, you’d get 100% response.

Where have you been, dude, it’s not like it’s a big secret the Catholic church is being taken over by homosexuals, even the Catholic clergy and bishops admit it.   Heck, they don’t even teach repentance of homosexuality, rather they just teach abstinence for homosexuals.
---

4. Where are your statistics for other Christian sects and their clergy? In other words what are you basing your comparison on?

Congregations like the Southern Baptists are NOT more closed off than the Catholic Church.  If there is the same wide spread problem, then where are the wide spread allegations?

[Lunar]

Remember that there are two separate but intertwining problems:

1) Child rape

2) The systemic covering up of child rape...other branches of church may not have the bureaucratic secrecy and whatnot that the Catholic Church has when it comes to this issue, and thus are far more immune to child rape scandals as known child rapists are not tolerated and passively allowed to continue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Use any definition.

'Any definition' would include, for example, slavery and segregation. Words are slippery things, aren't they.

But, yeah, it's difficult to think of many things contemporary American politicians have done that's worse than covering up for people who raped and tortured children.

[John Dibble]

doesn’t matter if they’re hard wired or not, it is still a perversion.  And perversion begets perversion.

On the subject of pedophilia vs. homosexuality, science begs to differ. A homosexual who is attracted to adults isn't just going to become a pedophile. Pedophiles are most often attracted exclusively to children, and actually tend to identify as heterosexual.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It both reduces heterosexuals form joining the clergy as well as encouraging homosexuals to join, because it has created an known atmosphere where homosexual activity is cloaked.[/quote]

It might, and I'm open to the possibility that it does, but I would prefer valid data before drawing a conclusion. I want to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible - to do that I need data from which to draw conclusions, not conjecture and supposition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You've stated that homosexuality (and pedophilia) is more common among Catholic priests than in most other Christian sects - that is something that can be proven with valid statistics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fair enough, but I do know that there is some degree of public perception that priests and pastors are often more "pure" in many aspects than the general populace. (not that such a perception is justified, of course)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You asked about homosexuality rates in the eastern church clergy, and since I lack data on that subject I gave the only answer I could feel honest about - I don't know. Again, I don't know how you got any innuendo of any kind from that. Would you rather I lie and make up a fake statistic?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My Exhibit A is the bible - They’re in violation of scripture, making themselves the arbitration of whom is to have their sexual desires suppressed – something the bible sternly warns results in sexual immorality, which is supported by my Exhibit B – the widespread occurrences of such cases within the western rite.[/quote]

Exhibit A is not science and does not mean there is any causal link. There could be one, but it isn't proven.

Exhibit B you have yet to show is any more statistically widespread than the other Christian sects.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of people have a "pretty good idea" about things that are not correct. As I said, I'd like more objective data on which to draw a conclusion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By all means provide a link then. I'd be more than happy to review the data.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can they prove these statements? Like with letters that people have wrote or something?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A random survey of your one church does not mean squat, 100% participation or not. I could probably find a Catholic church where I'd get 100% participation and 0% responding homosexual if I wanted. Statistics about big groups are only valid if they are conducted over a wide area with sufficient numbers.

Also, 80% may not be responding because response rates of random surveys can be low to begin with. How many people just hang up the phone when they are called for a random survey?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering homosexuality is hard-wired, this is far more reasonable than pretending that they can magically change their sexual orientation. But we've been over that so no need to go over it again.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Congregations like the Southern Baptists are NOT more closed off than the Catholic Church.  If there is the same wide spread problem, then where are the wide spread allegations.[/quote]

Maybe the allegations aren't so wide spread because Southern Baptists are a smaller group - Catholics outnumber all other Christian denominations combined with the Roman Catholics being by far being the biggest group at over 1.1 billion members, whereas the Baptists have 105 million members with the Southern Baptists only having a little over 16 million. Should I expect the smaller, less influential group to get equal attention?

Also perhaps because the Southern Baptists might actually be inclined to kick out child abusers and cooperate with law enforcement rather than shield them in some misguided attempt to protect their organization's image. As Lunar mentions the systematic covering up of this is part of the issue, and no doubt a significant part of why this keeps getting the degree of attention it is getting.

Again, the number of highly publicized allegations by the media is not a statistic that you can draw valid conclusions from.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

jmfcst simply refuses to acknowledge the very real possibility the eastern churches have the same pervasive problem as the Catholics do, but since the Catholics are grabbing headlines worldwide, the eastern churches are happy to hide under the radar with their transgressions.

Can I prove it?  Nope.  Can jmfacist prove I'm wrong?  Nope.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

doesn’t matter if they’re hard wired or not, it is still a perversion.  And perversion begets perversion.

On the subject of pedophilia vs. homosexuality, science begs to differ. A homosexual who is attracted to adults isn't just going to become a pedophile. Pedophiles are most often attracted exclusively to children, and actually tend to identify as heterosexual.

actually, the majority of these Catholic cases do NOT deal with pedophilia (defined as sex with pre-puberty children), rather they have to do with post-purberty minors being molested.  And the vast majority of these post-purberty victims are males, and the average age of male victims is older than the average age of the female victims.

[John Dibble]

doesn’t matter if they’re hard wired or not, it is still a perversion.  And perversion begets perversion.

On the subject of pedophilia vs. homosexuality, science begs to differ. A homosexual who is attracted to adults isn't just going to become a pedophile. Pedophiles are most often attracted exclusively to children, and actually tend to identify as heterosexual.

actually, the majority of these Catholic cases do NOT deal with pedophilia (defined as sex with pre-puberty children), rather they have to do with post-purberty minors being molested.  And the vast majority of these post-purberty victims are males, and the average age of male victims is older than the average age of the female victims.

Fair enough. But the problem is with abuse, not homosexuality in and of itself. Most homosexuals don't sexually abuse minors either way, so your "perversion begets perversion" rhetoric doesn't hold any sway over any reasonable person.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

By all means provide a link then. I'd be more than happy to review the data…Can they prove these statements? Like with letters that people have wrote or something?

Dibble, if you were actually interested, you would google it, for there are references to books and papers and interviews, all from within catholic hierarchy, stating the exact things I stated.  In fact, they were my sources for those facts.

You asking for “evidence” is like an hardened alcoholic asking for a reason to stop drinking, then turning right around and rejecting whatever evidence is given.  And while rejecting the evidence presented, you slander by offering innuendos of unknown cover-ups of other groups in order to explain away the evidence.

Though you claim to be influenced by “evidence”, you have your head buried in the sand, because for years one of the main posters on this forum is a self-admitted product of Jesuit teaching – which is why he is unable to see that Romans 1 is referring to consensual same-sex sex among those who knew the word of God yet rejected it, instead he has to pretend it is forced sex among pagans.  It’s a lie he has been taught by an ever increasing homosexual leadership.

So, dude, wake up and smell the coffee - it doesn’t matter how many dots I connect for you – you’re simply blind to the evidence you claim you seek, even when evidence surrounds you.

[John Dibble]

By all means provide a link then. I'd be more than happy to review the data…Can they prove these statements? Like with letters that people have wrote or something?

Dibble, if you were actually interested, you would google it, for there are references to books and papers and interviews, all from within catholic hierarchy, stating the exact things I stated.  In fact, they were my sources for those facts.

I'm not the one making the claims, you are - the one making a claim is the one responsible for providing evidence to back it up, not the one questioning it. Why should I have to prove your claims for you? If you were so interested in proving these claims to me, you should have linked your sources to begin with. I'm not about to go hunt down your sources. I certainly wouldn't expect you to hunt down mine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've questioned the scientific validity of your evidence. Anecdotal evidence is of a poor quality and isn't useful in making statistical judgments, something I've pointed out multiple times. Yet you continue to use anecdotal evidence as if it actually proves something statistical. Why you fail to understand this rather basic principle is beyond me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, I made no innuendos, something I've said repeatedly but has apparently failed to penetrate your skull. What part of "I don't know" implies anything other than "I don't know"? You may like to draw conclusions based on incomplete evidence, but I don't. That doesn't mean I'm implying a conspiracy theory. In fact if you'd actually been reading some of the things I've said in regards to possibilities on the other churches and why they don't have these widely reported scandals you'll note that I said one of the possibilities is that they don't make an effort to cover this kind of thing up and actually cooperate with law enforcement. I've said that in this and other threads. Instead of putting two and two together you imply that I'm some sort of lying conspiracy theorist. For crying out loud, what the hell is your problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wait, I have my head in the sand because some other poster is making claims that have nothing to do with me or my arguments? That makes no sense whatsoever. Are you high, or just insane?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Your claims have a statistical nature, so you acting like I'm being unreasonable when I'm asking for legitimate statistical evidence is just plain moronic. The best you've managed to do is provide casual statements, with perhaps one random survey being the most scientific thing you have, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the other half of your claim. (statistics on the other churches) You have drawn conclusions on blatantly incomplete evidence - don't blame me because I point out that obvious fact.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble, if you were actually interested, you would google it, for there are references to books and papers and interviews, all from within catholic hierarchy, stating the exact things I stated.  In fact, they were my sources for those facts.

I'm not the one making the claims, you are - the one making a claim is the one responsible for providing evidence to back it up, not the one questioning it. Why should I have to prove your claims for you? If you were so interested in proving these claims to me, you should have linked your sources to begin with. I'm not about to go hunt down your sources. I certainly wouldn't expect you to hunt down mine.

1) there are hundreds of links on this subject, and since you are claiming to want to investigate it, I am assuming you want to use more that just a few dozen references...so me posting several links is a waste of time

2) how hard is it, exactly, to google "homosexual priest", if you can't do that then I can't help you, but all throw you a bone and give you a link that summarizes many surveys of homosexuality within the priesthood:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

See, this is what I mean, you asking for "evidence" is just an excuse.  You're really not interested in the evidence.  Your act has long grown old.

[John Dibble]

1) there are hundreds of links on this subject, and since you are claiming to want to investigate it, I am assuming you want to use more that just a few dozen references...so me posting several links is a waste of time

No, one or two valid sources on each type of data needed would be sufficient. The link you provided is sufficient for the Catholic data points.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not, but again I don't expect you do to my work for me to prove my claims, so why should I expect any different from others?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for actually providing evidence for a change. Now we can actually analyze it. Since "Actual Surveys" are the closest to being scientific, those are the ones worth serious consideration. Let's say I accept the 33% estimate as being valid. Where is the information for non-Catholic churches for me to compare it to so as to determine the validity of your claim that the RCC has a higher ratio than them?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*yawn* Lob insults all you like. Since you've yet to provide any statistical data on the other churches, I could just as easily claim you don't give a damn about evidence.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not, but again I don't expect you do to my work for me to prove my claims, so why should I expect any different from others?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for actually providing evidence for a change. Now we can actually analyze it.

what a joke you are, I gave you the very first link that comes up when goggling "homosexual priest", yet the info in the link comes as news to you...you say you want evidence, but you don't even have the curiosity needed to the do the most basic search.  And your excuse for your laziness is that somehow the person making statements is responsible for walking you through the basics.  You’re like a senior in high school repeated asking the teacher how to spell three letter words, when you should break out of your stupor and do a basic query with a dictionary and at least attempt to catch up to your supposed grade level. 

I have kept you off of ignore because you are at least semi-respectful in your responses, but you’re a total waste of time, and have been for a long time, and now you are on ignore

[John Dibble]

I have kept you off of ignore because you are at least semi-respectful in your responses, but you’re a total waste of time, and have been for a long time, and now you are on ignore

OH NOES!



Whatever shall I do now that you'll be ignoring all of my argument rather than half of it like you usually do? I suppose I could... oh... I dunno, not waste my time arguing with a brick wall that doesn't understand basic logical principles.

And yes, it is your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims - if I went around spending my time investigating every other person's claims I wouldn't have any time for myself. If I make a claim then by all means ask for evidence and I shall put forth the effort to give it to you.

[afleitch]

Dibble Wins. Those are the rules of the interwebs.

[John Dibble]

PS, I did actually Google "abuse rates among priests" and some other such things for a few nights. Your particular link wasn't among the results - I guess that's what I get for trying to look up something more specific than "homosexual priests".

I made a point not to tell you my findings because I want you to actually back up what you say for a change - the fact that you call me lazy when you take days to link a single source of data after days of being asked for it shows just how much of a hypocrite you really are.

On the VERY FIRST SECTION of the Wikipedia article on the Catholic sex abuse cases this comes up:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Further going in to the original source we get even more!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If indeed there is actually a higher rate of homosexuality among Catholic priests than the priests and pastors of other Christian sects, but the actual rate of abuse is the same then this flies in the face of your "perversion begets perversion" argument.


But hey, you probably haven't even read this because I'm now on ignore, which I suppose is better than you just plain ignoring facts because they disagree with you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble Wins. Those are the rules of the interwebs.

If I were making advanced claims, then yes, it is my responsibility to provide some evidence.  But when a person has FOR DAYS been willfully discussing a topic, I expect that person to a least have the curiosity to read up on the matter he is discussing, especially when he is repeatedly questioning the elementary remarks of others.  If Dibble used 1/10 of the time he spends posting and use it to go and learn something, he wouldn't be such a hemorrhoid.

[John Dibble]

Dibble Wins. Those are the rules of the interwebs.

If I were making advanced claims, then yes, it is my responsibility to provide some evidence.  But when a person has FOR DAYS been willfully discussing a topic, I expect that person to a least have the curiosity to read up on the matter he is discussing, especially when he is repeatedly questioning the elementary remarks of others.  If Dibble used 1/10 of the time he spends posting and use it to go and learn something, he wouldn't be such a hemorrhoid.

I reiterate, I did. But you'll probably never know that because you're ignoring me.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Dibble Wins. Those are the rules of the interwebs.

If I were making advanced claims, then yes, it is my responsibility to provide some evidence.  But when a person has FOR DAYS been willfully discussing a topic, I expect that person to a least have the curiosity to read up on the matter he is discussing, especially when he is repeatedly questioning the elementary remarks of others.  If Dibble used 1/10 of the time he spends posting and use it to go and learn something, he wouldn't be such a hemorrhoid.

I reiterate, I did. But you'll probably never know that because you're ignoring me.

He's peeking dibble, guaranteed.