Catholic church at it again. This time Holland.

[Seth]

So far, most of the mockery and disdain has been pointed at the institution and leaders of the CC. But perhaps it is time to take a look at how much negligence there has been on the part of the rank and file Catholics.

A boy or girl is molested by the Church. They grow up, have kids, and surrender those children to the same system that abused them. They are facilitators.

Where's your evidence that this has happened? And does it matter that it's not "the system" but individual priests that abused them, and that new priests are not necessarily also child abusers?

Again, you wrongly accuse the entirety of the Catholic church hierarchy of crimes against children when it's perfectly obvious that the abuse was perpetrated and covered up by a relatively few individuals within the church hierarchy.

[JimC]

By now Seeth is getting desperate to defend an indefensible position, I imagine.

He hates the fact that these dreadful atheists have the temerity to criticise Mother Church, which leads him continuosly into:

DEFENDING KIDDY FIDDLERS!

That fucking clear enough, Seth?

[Seth]

By now Seeth is getting desperate to defend an indefensible position, I imagine.

He hates the fact that these dreadful atheists have the temerity to criticise Mother Church, which leads him continuosly into:

DEFENDING KIDDY FIDDLERS!

That fucking clear enough, Seth?

Still fucking your daughter, Jim?

Is that clear enough?

[Woodbutcher]

Seems to me that Seth thinks private contracting is the way to go for government services. According to him costs would go down and quality would go up. What a pile of festering bullshit! I happen to be in a position to know the facts in our neck of the woods. A contractor is not concerned about quality, only profit. Corners are cut, sub-standard materials are used, and unskilled labour is used to cut the costs. A lowest bidder will be forced to cut corners every time, and poor practices are common. You see, WE have to go in to repair the damage afterwards, that's how I know. Seth knows nothing about contracting as evidenced by his statements. He only knows libertarian dogma and tries to fit it into real life; unfortunately it only works in the shallow recesses of his brain. He cannot resist making asinine comments, after all he is a self-confessed troll. And, by the way, even if his persona is different in real life as he insists, the mere fact that he has to troll forums for a thrill casts doubt to that statement.
He says he has friends, so what? Hitler had friends. Genghis Khan had friends. Pat Robertson and Bill O'Reilly have friends. Doesn't make them any less cunts now, does it?

[Robert_S]

OK, Seth's not defending the kiddie diddlers themselves, but he is defending the institution wherein the diddling took place. That is, Seth is not defending a person who presumably has a sick compulsion, but the institution that they used as a means and a shelter.

To what degree is that institution to blame? It seems to me that those who knew what was happening and turned a blind eye are far more morally culpable than the sick bastards who couldn't keep their hands off the kids. But how widespread was the knowledge of both the general phenomenon and the specific cases?

By the way, it's not just atheists who are coming down hard on the CC over this. Prods and Catholics are doing so as well.

[Seth]

OK, Seth's not defending the kiddie diddlers themselves, but he is defending the institution wherein the diddling took place. That is, Seth is not defending a person who presumably has a sick compulsion, but the institution that they used as a means and a shelter.

Correct. As I said before, just as nobody would blame all public school teachers and administrators for the crimes of individual teachers, it's wrong to blame all Catholics, or even all Catholic priests for the crimes of individuals within the clergy. It is correct to blame those who committed crimes and who knowingly covered them up however.

To what degree is that institution to blame? It seems to me that those who knew what was happening and turned a blind eye are far more morally culpable than the sick bastards who couldn't keep their hands off the kids. But how widespread was the knowledge of both the general phenomenon and the specific cases?

My point exactly. Thank you.

By the way, it's not just atheists who are coming down hard on the CC over this. Prods and Catholics are doing so as well.

Indeed, and justifiably so, when the targets are those who did wrong. Even Tolerists™ have no sympathy or support for child molesters or their protectors.

[Robert_S]

So, where does the line get drawn between an upstanding organisation with a few bad apples and a rotten organisation? What metric do we use?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So, where does the line get drawn between an upstanding organisation with a few bad apples and a rotten organisation? What metric do we use?

It's not a line per se, it's a zone and that zone can be huge or very narrow. Each case goes on its own merits. This is where Seeth fails when he tries to deflect by calling in other organizations where abuse has occurred. The Catholic church has institutionalized child abuse. It's not an aberration for them, it's how they do business. The Salvation Army doesn't hustle abusers out of the area, pay hush money to the victims, demand that the families keep the kids quiet, and then tell them to "send us more kids!".

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Borrowed from JREF:

Watched a fun-filled program on the telly yesterday.
It featured interviews with abuse victims from the RCC youth institutions.

Some of the highlights:

Thirteen-year-old boy is sexually abused on a regular basis by a teacher.
When the principal found out, he called the kid into his office and berated him for being a 'dirty little boy'.
Then had the kid moved to another institution. Not the teacher, mind you.

Little girl in RCC boarding school gets a call from her father that her mother has a life threatening infection, can she come home immediately?
After packing her suitcase she is called into the principles office who tells her: 'I've talked to your parents, your mother doesn't want to see you after all because you had a C in Latin'.

That last one shocked me more, because it was done for the sake of extreme sadism rather than sex.

Anybody here seen the film 'the Magdalene sisters'?

[MrJonno]

As far as I know there has been no accussations of any organisation even 1/100th the size of the Catholic church covering up sexual abuse. Thats what makes the Church evil not individual cases of abuse but the efforts to cover it up

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As far as I know there has been no accussations of any organisation even 1/100th the size of the Catholic church covering up sexual abuse. Thats what makes the Church evil not individual cases of abuse but the efforts to cover it up

You'll get used to Seeth's dishonest debating style. He doesn't care about facts, just about arguing. So anything goes with him, including making stuff up on the fly and taking opposing sides of the same issue in different threads.

[Seth]

So, where does the line get drawn between an upstanding organisation with a few bad apples and a rotten organisation? What metric do we use?

I think that would be pretty clear. A "rotten organization" is one that is organized for the purpose of committing crimes.

NAMBLA might seem to be a "rotten organization" because it's stated purpose for existing is to advocate and support child molestation, and yet it is not a criminal enterprise because evidently it cannot be proven that either the organization or any specific person within the hierarchy of the organization, has actually molested a child. Apparently they are extremely careful to only engage in free speech regarding the sexual preferences of perverts and advocate changes in the law. By the way, just to be perfectly clear, this doesn't mean that I in ANY WAY support NAMBLA, I think it's a disgusting organization filled with unpunished perverts, but I respect the law that protects their free speech rights, even if I find that speech revolting.

However, a company "organized" for the purposes of producing child pornography is a "rotten organization," and, as it happens, a criminal enterprise. Criminal enterprises are formed for the express purpose of violating the law, and so they qualify, and can be shut down and the members prosecuted.

Short of that, an "organization" organized for any legitimate and lawful purpose that happens to contain some child molesters or co-conspirators should not be tarred with the "rotten organization" brush, particularly when it's one of the world's largest "organizations" comprised of a billion members. In ANY group so large there will inevitably be criminals of many stripes, and it is unreasonable to expect the organization to know every detail about every person who is a member of the organization and know ever action they take at all times. No organization can uphold that metric. We know for a fact that the public school systems contain many, many more child molesters than ever existed at one time in the Catholic church, and it's not to be defined as a "rotten organization," is it?

Now, people WITHIN any organization may be corrupt or criminals, and the law requires that, in this case, all organizations report suspected child abuse if and when they become aware of it, so that those individuals who break the law can be punished. Anyone within the organization who fails to report, or engages in criminal activity, can and should be prosecuted.

[Robert_S]

Anyone care to compare the RCC with Penn State?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State ... se_scandal

The Penn State sex abuse scandal refers to allegations that former Pennsylvania State University football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulted or had inappropriate contact with at least eight underage boys on or near university property. After an extensive grand jury investigation, Sandusky was indicted on 42 counts of child molestation dating from 1994 to 2009, though the abuse may date as far back as the 1970s.[1]

Per the findings of the investigation, several high-level school officials were charged with perjury,[2] suspended, or dismissed for allegedly covering up the incidents or failing to notify authorities. In the wake of the scandal, head football coach Joe Paterno was dismissed from his position and school president Graham Spanier was forced to resign. Sandusky has denied the allegations.[3]
Background

Sandusky was an assistant coach under head coach Joe Paterno for the Penn State football team for 31 seasons from 1969 to 1999. For the last 23 of those years, he was the team's defensive coordinator.[4] In 1977, Sandusky founded The Second Mile, a charity formed to help troubled young boys, in State College, Pennsylvania.[5] In 1998, he was investigated for sexual abuse of a child by the University Police, State College Police, Centre County District Attorney, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, and a "child protection agency," but no charges were filed.[6] Sandusky was considered for spearheading a football program at Penn State Altoona in 1998-99, but the idea was scrapped and he retired in 1999.[7] After his retirement as Penn State's defensive coordinator, he remained as a coach emeritus with an office in, and access to, Penn State's football facilities.[8]
Grand jury investigation

The investigation was initiated in the spring of 2008, after the mother of a boy (identified in court papers as "Victim 1"), then a freshman at Central Mountain High School in Clinton County, Pennsylvania, reported that the boy had been sexually abused by Sandusky. According to court papers, Sandusky had been having a relationship involving "inappropriate touching" with Victim 1 since 2005 or 2006, when the boy was 11 or 12. Sandusky had met the boy through the Second Mile program before retiring from the program in 2010.[9][10] Sandusky was also volunteering as an assistant high school football coach at Central at the time of the alleged actions.[11] The investigation included testimony from various individuals at Penn State and The Second Mile. Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly has said that during the grand jury investigation there was an "uncooperative atmosphere" from some of these officials.[12]

In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. McQueary testified that, on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 p.m., he entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and "saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years old, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky."[13][14] The next day, McQueary reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who informed Athletic Director Tim Curley. Ultimately, the only action taken by Curley and Gary Schultz, Senior vice president for finance and business (who also oversaw the Penn State police department), was to order Sandusky not to bring any children from Second Mile to the football building — an action that was approved by school president Graham Spanier.[9][4] The identity of the boy remains unknown to the authorities.[15]

[Seth]

As far as I know there has been no accussations of any organisation even 1/100th the size of the Catholic church covering up sexual abuse. Thats what makes the Church evil not individual cases of abuse but the efforts to cover it up

Yes, there has. First and foremost among them are the public schools in the US, which are absolutely stuffed with child molesters who are, in fact, concealed and moved around in places precisely to avoid scandal.

Then there's the splinter Mormons, the Moonies, the Scientologists, the Rajneesh cult, the Boy Scouts and I'm sure many other large organizations where children are present.

So, your ignorance of the magnitude of the problem is not really much of an argument.

[Audley Strange]

Hm? How is the Catholic church an "illegitimate authority?" First, today it's entirely voluntary. Second, in the deep past (and I don't accept the Wayback Machine fallacy) it was a government as well as a church in some places and at some times. You might not like that form of government, but that's no different than objecting to Capitalism or Socialism. People choose to be members of the church, so the church's authority over them is not "illegitimate" in the least because they consent to it.

No I don't accept your wayback machine fallacy either. You are quite right it was a government as well as a church, in most of Europe, for quite a long time. Its authority did not come from the voluntary acceptance of the faith, but by torture, murder and fear, by private armies and eradication of many groups who contradicted their version of Christianity, by indoctrination, using priests as secret police and blackmailers. Sure, much like every other government has done without the consent of the people.

And what "fraud" has the church perpetrated? I suspect you believe that it's theistic claims constitute "fraud" but you'll have a damned tough time proving that in court, since you can't provide a shred of proof that what they claim is not the truth. You might think you can, but as I have pointed out, religious beliefs are a tricky thing when it comes to determining "truth." That's why the memes are so effective. And since association is voluntary these days, you'll not have much luck I'm afraid.

And I suppose in such a case one could not swear on the bible.