"The amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is miniscule compared to Protestants ... but no one goes after the Protestants. They don't have deep money pockets"

Re the above quote: “The amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is miniscule compared to Protestants” … I don’t believe this for a minute!

Seems that the Catholic abuse is against young boys and has been broadly covered up by the Catholic hierarchy.

The Catholic Church will undoubtedly survive and thrive as the momentum is now going their way, at least in the U.S. This will soon be forgotten, as happened here in the USA. People believe what they want to believe, and my catholic family members and friends are even more proud of being catholic than before the sex scandals. I think many catholics become more “patriotic” and run to the aid of their church when a scandal unfolds.

Think of the conversions to Catholicism we have seen since the sex scandals. Even the Inter Varsity article shows that catholicism is being looked upon favorably by naive evangelicals.

It is sort of like the rise of interest in Islam after 911. You would think it would work in reverse, but it doesn’t — except with those already on the verge of alienation.

Obviously there are spiritual forces at work in our world, and the draw to religion — rather than a Bible-oriented personal faith in Christ — is more the rage than ever.

This article, though, was particularly mindless, especially this:

“It’s my opinion that a well-rounded and responsible understanding of human sexuality may greatly diminish the want for an adult to engage in such deplorable behavior.”

Good grief. Avoiding sin is a whole lot more complicated than information. Especially when it is the sin of child-molesting. There are sins that are normal temptations (e.g., adultery), and then there are complex sins that are particularly dangerous (being drawn to molest children). To lump them together is in itself a display of naivete.

"The Midrash Detective"

The “I have a friend” gambit has never been viewed as a credible means of supporting one’s statements.
“I have a friend who is a Protestant Minister, and he said that the amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is miniscule compared to Protestants,” said Turner, “but no one goes after the Protestants. They don’t have deep money pockets.”
I have a friend too, Mr. Turner, and my friend said your friend is an idiot. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-taunt013.gif

[Susan R] The “I have a friend” gambit has never been viewed as a credible means of supporting one’s statements.
The Candor is the student newspaper at Benedictine University, and its opinion editor Ben Harley is presumably a student there. Not to excuse, of course…

[TRJones]
[Susan R] The “I have a friend” gambit has never been viewed as a credible means of supporting one’s statements.
The Candor is the student newspaper at Benedictine University, and its opinion editor Ben Harley is presumably a student there. Not to excuse, of course…
No, it is not an excuse, but it is understandable. We pick up a lot over the years.

"The Midrash Detective"

I’m just sayin’ that this is quite an accusation to make based on “I have a friend who said”- and supposedly the fact that this guy is a Protestant minister lends the story more ‘weight’.

Susan,

I totally understand your concern—or think I do. I hope I’m not being condescending to say that I have no doubt that the writer thought it was a great quote but that (as you’d agree?) mature, thinking people of any denomination should see right through it.

Or does “in the mouth of two or three witnesses” include “It’s in my mouth now, and I’m telling you my friend said it too”? :D

On the other hand, neither does this authorial weakness excuse any actual abuse that does go on in Protestant or even Fundamentalist circles. I don’t think the best question is whether more abuse goes on in one place or another. Even that seems to be a rather immature way to frame a debate (once again, I’m sure it sounded good to the author). But immaturity requires different responses than deceit does, even if the first can quickly turn into the second. I plan for my response to be something that I pray doesn’t turn into intellectual condescension.

[TRJones] On the other hand, neither does this authorial weakness excuse any actual abuse that does go on in Protestant or even Fundamentalist circles.
Of course not. I would hope that you do not feel that some of us would.

"The Midrash Detective"

That comment is just some guys anecdotal observation. Sure, Protestants have their sex scandals, but I see no way how, given they are permitted to marry and have that as a God-supplied outlet for physical desires, that Protestant ministers are as involved in child molestation and other forms of immorality than those who must make vows of celibacy.

The brutal reality of child molestation should not be reduced to a contest of who does it more often- Catholics or Protestants, nor should it be taken as gospel that Protestants are guilty more often than Catholics just because a Protestant minister makes that claim. It is also nauseating that the conclusion of the article is:

It is a difficult time for the church. It is a time of change. Yet, I believe that it will be able to survive this scandal. It has survived worse scandals - just ask the people of Avignon, France - and it always survives with its faith stronger, and its resolve more blessed.
This concern for the Catholic religion to survive a ‘scandal’- how about concern for the children who were victimized? Who cares if the ‘institution’ survives? This is human nature, of course- to preserve institutions and its leaders/celebrities instead of protecting the innocent, and of course I realize that there have been cases in IFBism of just that kind of cowardly behavior.

If an institution is worth its weight in Skittles, it will survive because it dealt quickly and boldly with immorality or unethical behavior, and if it doesn’t consider itself able to survive without protecting its criminals, then it isn’t worth having around.

The only reason the author included this quote in his article was for its sensationalistic nature- otherwise it had nothing to do with the main topic.

[Jonathan Charles] That comment is just some guys anecdotal observation. Sure, Protestants have their sex scandals, but I see no way how, given they are permitted to marry and have that as a God-supplied outlet for physical desires, that Protestant ministers are as involved in child molestation and other forms of immorality than those who must make vows of celibacy.
Another word for “some guy’s anecdotal observation” is experience. It is sadly amusing to see the knee jerk defence when protestantism is made out to be worse than catholicism.
“They are bigger sinners than we are” is what seems to be being said. In saying one doesn’t believe it are we guilty of trying to ignore it?
In the absence of statistics all we can go on is the experience of people and because we may not like what they are saying doesn’t mean it is false.




2

Richard Pajak

I am not making a defense for Protestants. Heck, we had Bob Gray down in Florida molesting school children in his office. I’m saying that “experience”/anecdotal evidence is just one person’s limited perspective in his little sub-culture. I’m not saying that the guy who made the comment is wrong, but stating a fact and only having anecdotal evidence to support your “fact” makes your “fact” suspect. Do Protestants as a whole ignore sexual sins when they arise among their leadership? They probably have. They sure did try to sweep it under the rug in Jacksonville. The difficulty in Protestantism is that there is not one monolithic church. Many churches are independent and depend on the local church to properly discipline and then report the crime to authorities; there is no hierarchy above the local church to make sure these things get done. This is probably why people have gotten so angry with the Catholic church. The child molestation cases were well known up the line, they weren’t swept under the rug in the local church, the leadership in the diocese knew about it and still did nothing about it.

In saying one doesn’t believe it are we guilty of trying to ignore it?

It isn’t, IMO, about whether or not the statement is accurate (and there is no way on the planet to verify it, so why even say it) but the statement doesn’t even begin to address the issue of the continued victimization of children by those who are in positions of power and influence, which isn’t limited to Catholics or Protestants.

If one wants to seriously address the issue of who is molesting children, [URL=http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/ let’s look at some facts[/URL]:

* In one year alone, approximately 4,300 child molesters in 15 states were released from confinement.
* Of the 4,300 child molesters released, approximately 3.3% were rearrested within three years for another sex offense against a child.
* Approximately 25% of child molesters were age 40 or older.
* Among those child molesters who were released in that one year, 60% had been confined for molesting a child 13 years of younger.
* More than three-fourths of violent crimes against children occurred either in the offender’s home or the victim’s place of residence.
* More than half of the negligent manslaughter offenders’ crimes occurred in a public place, such as a park or a street.
* Eight out of ten crimes by convicted sex offenders and/or child molesters in their own homes were forcible rapes or sexual assaults.
* In almost half of the the child molestation cases, the child was the convicted sex offender’s son, daughter, or relative.
* White inmates were nearly three times more likely to have victimized a child than black inmates.
* About one in every seven Hispanic convicts had been convicted for a crime against a child.
* Nearly two-thirds of convicted child molesters and/or offenders were or had been married.
* Child molesters and offenders were more likely to have grown up in a two parent home and were more likely to have been molested as a child.

Many of these facts are surprising to folks- such as a high percentage of offenders being white and married, and that victims are usually a relative of the offender or someone they often have access to- which does away with the idea that “Don’t talk to strangers” provides any sort of real protection for children.

It isn’t completely out of line to offer one’s perceptions based on their experiences, but it should be stated as one’s perceptions based on one’s experiences, and not as definitive.


  • Regarding the comment: “The amount of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy is miniscule compared to Protestants”
    • Without any statistics how could one argue one way or another? Perhaps the insurance industry has a database that could be mined for statistics about which group abuses more!
    • Purely anecdotal
    • Here’s another anecdote: I was visiting the graveyard of my wife’s parents this past Summer (Phlox Wisconsin). I’m talking to my brother in law who is a Catholic. He tells me that because the Protestant church permits ministers to marry, that protestants don’t have the level of sexual abuse that the Catholic priests have. That anecdote has the same weight (light weight I add!) as the one quoted by the author.

  • Regarding the comment: “but no one goes after the Protestants. They don’t have deep money pockets”
    • Protestants have deep enough pockets to be sued!
    • And so some do “go after Protestants”!

  • Protestants: There is a broad group: All non-Catholics basically. In that group you have apostate denominations and churches
  • Regardless of the greater or lesser degree of sex abuse, this much all must agree!
    • All sexual abuse is sin!
    • All sexual abuse is criminal
    • To cover up sexual abuse is likewise sinful and criminal. Whether a Catholic Bishop does it or a Baptist minister.

  • The truth of or lack of truth of Catholicism does not rest upon how much or how little or how much more than or less than sex abuse is in another church!