Posted on 05/16/2011 10:48:24 AM PDT by bronxville
WHO is hiding them? NO ONE! There is NO ONE above the local congregation. YOu might as well blame yourself for ‘hiding them’ - you have equal authority with the SBC President.
And that congregational model goes back 400+ years...
Okay, they aren’t being “hidden.” Now, where are they in an article commenting on a discussion by an official of the SBC or other Baptist convention posted in ALL CAPS DAILY on the Religion Forum?
See?
“One wonders how many other names he is participating under and how many of the other malignantly anti-Catholics are similarly “seminar posters”.”
I’d say he’s definitely not alone as they like to work in packs like wolves - his post #8 is probably only one lying example. I’ve seen it on the most repulsive anti-Catholics sites which is why I recognized it.
>> There is simply no reason to think that clergy child molesters are solely a Catholic problem
While there may be less than 2 out of every one hundred Priests that are depraved degenerates, that won’t stop the single-minded focus on attacking the Church for the abuse that is more systemic outside its walls.
Remove the homosexuality and the incident rate should hit 0%.
Catholics have posted stuff about Baptist pastors committing sexual predation. Frankly, I cannot imagine posting stuff that I know will bring the name of Jesus Christ into dispute. I expect that from atheists, perhaps, but not Christians.
>> No and I am disgusted that Bill Donohue would minimize inappropriate touching of a child.
Nonsense. The law makes a distinction you’re implying does not exist.
Donohue is not minimizing the crime of assault. He’s refuting what he perceives to be politically motivated distortions. Facts matter, and no one should be accused of a crime they did not commit.
Minimizing the Baptist problem, I see.
Naturally, since there is no church hierarchy, why not?
Seriously, I have no quarrel with you, and I hope you do not with me. The problem is, the incessant group focus on child sexual abuse as a Catholic problem, the inaccurate and dishonest discussions, the group anti-Catholic mentality, etc.
May God bless us all with His ever-present Holy Spirit, and most especially the children.
And please, since you endeavor to be His true servant, take a look at the one-sided attitudes that often seem to obtain here.
Mr Rogers - >“WaterBoard, I’m afraid you will need to go to some posters and personally read them report.”
Mr Rogers - > “But it won’t do any good. Some prefer to defend their church by squeezing their eyes shut and pretending it hasn’t happened. It is hard to read when you eyes are shut.””
This was my Response -> “I’ve actually read the report, have you? See the above post to WaterBoard or go back and actually read post #8. If you accept it as a real Study then so be it.”
Which you never acknowledged leaving one to assume you were in a collusionary agreement with WaterBoard hence agreeing with the total distortion of the Bishop Conference review which clearly states - “ACCUSATIONS” and “ALLEGATIONS” therefore clearly NOT A STUDY of ACTUAL abuses as portrayed by WaterBoard.
Mr Rogers - > “Catholics have posted stuff about Baptist pastors committing sexual predation. Frankly, I cannot imagine posting stuff that I know will bring the name of Jesus Christ into dispute. I expect that from atheists, perhaps, but not Christians.”
Sorry but lies cannot go unchallenged, and posts, such as, #51, #8...will not go unabated, otherwise these incessant anti-Catholic postings here will continue.
The peace of Christ be with you and all here.
“The Report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse. Of these, the dioceses had been able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time covered by the study.[2] The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 70s, declined in the 80s, and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[3]
The surveys filtered information provided from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest’s victims to the research team so that they did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed. Of the 4,392 priests who were accused, police were contacted regarding 1,021 individuals and of these, 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences; 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
So roughly 2/3 of the accusations were substantiated by the Catholic Church, and of those alive for investigation, roughly 1/4 were convicted in court.
I think it is reasonable to believe that the percentages of actions that involved more than just ‘inappropriate touching’ were accurate. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report#Profile_of_the_alleged_abuses
for a summary.
Do you have a study of convictions that would indicate otherwise?
I can hardly believe that you would use leftist WIKI for facts.
You aren’t a dimocrat who puts erroneous information on wiki, are you?
From the infamous “Post 8”:
“US clerics (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims’ ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
Victims’ gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one alleged victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).”
Notice the words “allegations”, “accusations”, “accused”?
WB did not claim convictions in post 8, did he (or she, I don’t know)?
The information originally came from a study commissioned by the Catholic Church. Do you believe the Catholic Church lies about itself?
“If incidents that include acts of oral sex or sexual penetration are counted alone, they total 3,280, or 34%.”
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident4.pdf
Someone is doing the hiding, for so few of these stories make the news releases. I just have to wonder “Who is doing the hiding of these pedophiles?”
“Someone is doing the hiding, for so few of these stories make the news releases. I just have to wonder “Who is doing the hiding of these pedophiles?””
What are you talking about?
Protestant pedophiles, including Baptists, I would imagine. Please correct me, Salvation, if I am mistaken.
So if there are not a lot of reports of Baptist pastors who are pedophiles, the conclusion is that Baptists are hiding them?
Might it not be that local control, and the knowledge that even an allegation can result in the immediate firing of the pastor means fewer will take the chance? Or that married pastors are less likely to be homosexuals than unmarried priests?
Because in the SBC, there isn’t a hierarchy that CAN hide them. How can person A hide someone if person A doesn’t exist?
You wrote - “US clerics (priests, deacons, bishops, etc.) accused of abuse from 1950-2002: 4,392.
About 4% of the 109,694 serving during those 52 years.
Individuals making accusations: 10,667.
Victims’ ages: 5.8% under 7; 16% ages 8-10; 50.9% ages 11-14; 27.3% ages 15-17.
Victims’ gender: 81% male, 19% female
Duration of abuse: Among victims, 38.4% said all incidents occurred within one year; 21.8% said one to two years; 28%, two to four years; 11.8% longer.
Victims per priest: 55.7% with one alleged victim; 26.9% with two or three; 13.9% with four to nine; 3.5% with 10 or more (these 149 priests caused 27% of allegations).”
Notice the words “allegations”, “accusations”, “accused”?
WB did not claim convictions in post 8, did he (or she, I don’t know)?
You forgot to include his introduction to the FAKE “stats” which is the very bone...
WaterBoard -> “Wow, that is an absolute lie and easily disprovable by the Church’s own reports. This just re-victimizes the children over again to say they were not ‘raped’ by priests. Is the Catholic League now saying that children can chose who they sleep with since its not considered ‘rape’ by them? “
Of course “accusation” and “alleged” is in the fine print BUT did he preface that in his portrayal which is the point of contention (another being no link). No, of course he didn’t otherwise his fake stats would be utterly useless, and that’s the deception, that’s the LIE. The LIE committed by omission in order to slander. That’s how the left works. See post 21, again used as a fact in order to deceive. Poster in #25 was deceived and I’m sure there are others...that’s how it works.
Your JJ wiki links aren’t useful and serve more as a red herring.
You’re getting it a little more but not quite, that being said, one wonders where’s Waldo - WaterBoard - working overtime at soroscatholics-love-abortions.org
God bless all here.
“Of course “accusation” and “alleged” is in the fine print BUT did he preface that in his portrayal which is the point of contention (another being no link). No, of course he didn’t otherwise his fake stats would be utterly useless, and that’s the deception, that’s the LIE. The LIE committed by omission in order to slander. That’s how the left works. See post 21, again used as a fact in order to deceive. Poster in #25 was deceived and I’m sure there are others...that’s how it works.”
IOW, people with an agenda don’t read the fine print and the left aka WaterBoard know it. It’s how they peddle their wares.
“Might it not be that local control, and the knowledge that even an allegation can result in the immediate firing of the pastor means fewer will take the chance?”
If it was only that simple but see post #52 where it was a second or third time for a Pastor (and sigh, yes, it happened with priests as well)...
“Or that married pastors are less likely to be homosexuals than unmarried priests?”
Could you expand?
Certainly. However, given the general population statistics of child sexual abusers, I doubt that married Baptist pastors are any better, as a group, than any other. No one here will fault you for thinking your pastors superior to priests, however. It seems to be a function of the mainstream media, to single out Catholics, and no doubt groups that do not engage in self-reflection can sleep easily.
Do Baptist seminaries refuse to ordain non-sexually active homosexuals? How do they weed them out? If they are married, how do they know they are homosexual? Are there Baptist ministers who are not seminary trained?
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.