Plus...jail all of the enablers that simply moved the child-buggerers around so that they could continue raping children at their new locations...

ALL OF THEM.

If I rob someone in the US, that is a violation of the Ten Commandments and grounds to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church, but the Vatican does NOT have the power to come to the US, arrest me, put me on trial, and sentence me to jail. That right is reserved to the US and State governments. Do you want the Vatican to be able to arrest people in the US? That is what you are advocating.

Remember it is up to the local police and law enforcement people to JAIL people for criminal activity. If the local Law Enforcement Agencies decides to do nothing, that is NOT the fault of the Catholic Church AND CLEARLY NOT THE FAULT OF THE VATICAN.

Now, local bishops were noted for moving pedophiles around, but the Vatican told them to stop doing so in the 1990s. Since the mid 1990s the local bishops have been under strict orders to report any accusations of child abuse, even ones they think are FALSE, to local law enforcement officers. Most of the cases we here of today, involve accusations dating back to those pre 1995 days.

The Vatican even issued an order in the early 1950s, that a Priest who were told in the Confessionor of such abuse, to ask the confessor to file a complaint with the Bishop. Under Church doctrine (recognized under US law) anything told to the Priest in the Confessionor can NOT be repeated outside the confessionor. Thus the priest was instructed to ask the confessor to file a complaint with the bishop so that the bishop would learn of the abuse and address the abuse. When no one file such a complaint, no investigation could take place.

Furthermore, most of the cases we hear of today, the parents did file a complaint and the bishop did move the abuser around (we are talking pre 1995). It is these cases we are hearing about today, for the Statute of limitation has long run out on criminal sanctions, but civil litigation is still possible, Also in most of the cases we hear today NO ONE INFORMED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. The victim did not, nor the victim's parents, nor the bishop.

Many bishops on hearing of the accusation asked the abuser about the accusation and the abuser denied the abuse. This is the famous situation, he said she said. False accusation of abuse is well known, it is made more often then a lot of people like to believe (Heavy amount of such accusation occurs in custody cases, where it is not unusual for one parent, or both parents to accuse the other of such sexual or physical abuse AND withdraw them once a satisfactory cash settlement as to the division of marital assets is resolved.

How do you prove that abuse occurred? In criminal cases you need evidence BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. If one person is making such an accusation, but there is NOT physical evidence or other evidence to support such an accusation do you believe that is sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Most Judges would disagree with you and so would most juries.

On the other hand, if you have several victims who testify that an abuser abused them, in a way similar to how the accuser is say the abuser abused the accuser, while NOT admissible in criminal cases except as evidence showing a constant technique, it is admissible in civil litigation to show that the abuser had the tendency to go after a certain type of victim and how the abuser did so.

Thus, unless you have some other evidence of abuse, such as injuries do to the abuse, it is hard to get a conviction is such cases. Worse, if you look at most of the cases, an argument could be made it was consensual. The Victim did not really say NO.

In other studies of the victims, no one under the age of 10 was a victim. The range of victim tended to be 12-14 with outliers at age 10, 11 and 15 (and all but one were 15 and 11, yes they was only one ten year old victim). That report was based on US accusation dating back to the 1950s.

Now, I have sued the Catholic Church on race discrimination grounds so I am NOT pro Catholic Church, but at least try to understand the legal situation before you attack someone. Jail is NOT an option for the Vatican has not power of arrest or incarceration outside of the Vatican itself. No state has ever said a Catholic Bishop can arrest and jail someone.

You can attack the Catholic Church for NOT forwarding such accusations to local law enforcement, but often local law enforcement sent it right back to the bishop to handle. Often parents refused to even go to local law enforcement. You can blame the Catholic Church for failing to move people accused of abuse to be kept permanently away from potential victims, but accusations that the Catholic Church should have put such abuser is Jail, is to demand the Catholic Church to exercise powers held solely by local law enforcement.

At the minimum that evidence needs to see the light of day, imo.

And then it is up to local law enforcement to "jail" any of those priests, not the Pope. In most cases you do NOT have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime took place, but you have enough to show a preponderance of evidence that it more likely then not occurred.

Remember the OJ Simpson Trial? In the CRIMINAL TRIAL, the Jury found that the prosecution had NOT proved beyond a reasonable doubt that OJ did the crime. At the subsequent CIVIL trial, where the burden is only a preponderance of evidence, i.e. more likely that the crime occurred then it did not, OJ was held civilly liable for the crime.

The same problem with most pedophile cases, you have enough evidence to de-flock them, but not enough evidence to convict them. Burden of proof is a big factor in any criminal case.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/vatican-blasted-sex-abuse-scandal

Bishop Accountability
http://bishopaccountability.org

...but it's a start.

- An extremely tiny, tiny start.

K&R

Catholic priests currently number over 400,000 worldwide.

are you saying that all 400,000 Catholic priests are child molesters?

http://www.statisticbrain.com/sex-offender-statistics/

One report states that 5% of all males commit pedifiia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Development_and_sexual_orientation

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618?journalCode=clinpsy

Child Molesters, a Behavior analysis"

http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC70.pdf

National Juvenail Victim on line study:

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV72.pdf

In a 2005 report, of child abuse reports where in internet was involved, made to local law enforcment:,

In that report 44% of all victims, the abuser as a family member.

Neighbor or member of community 16%
Friend or relative of juvenile friend 12 %
Teacher 9 %
Family friend or friend of parent 7%
Leader or member of youth organization/athletics 4%

http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/jvq/CV93.pdf

A book from the late 1980s report the following:

7-8% of all abuse are done by fathers (Through such reports dominate Children and Youth Cases).

16-42% by other male relatives (uncles, brothers, cousins etc)

32-60% of abusers are family friends, child care workers and other authorities

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ws2-t5u8030C&oi=fnd&pg=PA79&dq=Child+sexual+abuse+age+of+abuser&ots=ozvUuNonHB&sig=OhXL7TJnN3-4KAPBJniD_doOYLQ#v=onepage&q=Child%20sexual%20abuse%20age%20of%20abuser&f=false

I have problem with those reports, other reports indicate much higher male relative sexual abuse




Sexual abuse claims increase from the 1960s to the 1980s, this was contributed to people were more willing to report such abuse. Earlier studies indicate Child abuse had been high, but no one wanted to deal with it so no one took any reports. Thus when surveys were done, you had high reports about child abuse, but when you looked at Police Reports you had much lower numbers, till they started to climb after about 1960s:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dqxpyL10fOoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA7&dq=Child+sexual+abuse+age+of+abuser&ots=qi2V9D9hhB&sig=u_QC1Xvsol4CgkEXAzRApXcnYjE#v=onepage&q=Child%20sexual%20abuse%20age%20of%20abuser&f=false



Just pointing out you have to look at these numbers when compare to the General Population and from the Statistics I have seen, such abuse by Catholic Priests are LOWER then from the General Population.

You call these statistics when you have not only cherry picked to the hilt but have misrepresented the statistics themselves over and over again. Some of the sites are very entertaining but also are a menagerie of out of context number juggling.

You're bowling with words and the words are empty. You take a stat from these sites, then twist the point to prove a false premise. How dare you? Your statements are full of inaccuracies. Add a word here, take another away there and voilà you have some sort of nonsense.

I can no longer take you seriously and I suggest anyone who reads your posts should look at your stats and compare it to your statements. No one should take your written points as realistic after what I've read this evening.

"As many as 5% of the General Population are pedophiles"... Bull shit! You didn't read the context and you made a false statement.

Here's one blaring example:

One report states that 5% of all males commit pedifiia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Development_and_sexual_orientation

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618?journalCode=clinpsy

It does not. It says in the Wiki (god help us)
"The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known, but is estimated to be lower than 5% among adult men"

Then you send us to Wiki link (30) which is the second link you posted that is a partial report, the whole of which you pay for by subscription. You have a subscription? or an institution license? Well you don't need to have either because it's a repeat of what I just stated correcting your statistics bludgeoning.

The only reason I am not putting you on ignore is that I will be watching your statistics flinging very carefully from now on and I suggest others do the same.

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 10:31 AM - Edit history (1)

When surveys are done, there is a higher reporting of abuse then is reflected in reports to local law enforcement. Furthermore, no one as a single definition of "child" let alone "child abuse". Does "Child" include 17 years olds? Married 17 years old? Married 12 year olds? (legal in some states, Pennsylvania ruled its Common Law Marriage rule permitted 12 years to marry in the late 1990. Pennsylvania subsequently abolished its Common Law Rule, but other states have similar rules and they courts would take the PA rule as precedent, one Colorado judge made a comment on this recently, he did NOT have to rule on that issue but Colorado Common Law Marriage rule was almost the same as PA's and thus permit 12 year old to marry).

What if the abuser is a minor? If the child WILLING participated in the sexual act? i.e. a 15 year old having sex with a 19 year old? Or even a 15 year old having sex with a 16 year old? Is any of these abuse? In some definitions (and in some states) the answer is YES, in other situations (and other states) the answer is NO>

I bring this up, for that is the problem with any statistics in regards to child abuse, we still do not have a single definition of child abuse, thus what is child abuse is decided on a case by case basis.

Why?

Out of the woods you are all of a sudden discussing child abuse. You were originally advertising the word "pedophile" and making the false 5% assertion, "As many as 5% of the General Population are pedophiles, thus rarer among priest then the GP." You can't just make stuff up, present it as fact, then dump massive amounts of data to make it look like you have a point. Now you are changing the subject to a more general term child abuse seemingly to cover up your false assertion about the general population and pedophiles, then wrap a piece of bacon around it and state, "thus rarer then (I think you mean than) the GP".

You take a lot of information that could be important, other information that is not and twist it to make a point that is false, finally deflecting the discussion when you are found out.

Your comment did not help you, it made it considerably worse.

I suggest you make your points much more simple and stick to facts. If you don't understand the data or you are so prejudiced on the issue that you can't reply honestly, then don't pretend to interpret it.

Reality works.

Figures...

From what I hear the Vatican is loaded with cash, gold, and other goodies they get from people who join their ranks.

848 defrocked
2,572 with lesser penalties

Are we supposed to be happy about this? Are we supposed to be glad that justice was done?

That is massive systemic corruption. If it's justice, please explain, I don't get it.

The Catholic Church, outside of the Vatican, can only DEFROCK or otherwise penalize such priests, the Vatican has no power to arrest them and jail them. The power to arrest such pedophile is reserved to the local law enforcement agency. Under the reforms in regards to such cases in the US, since 1995 in such cases the accusation MUST be also be sent to local law enforcement.

to your post. I deleted it because I now think you have been insincere and manipulative in this thread.

Two popes ago, one who was just sainted... elevated Cardinal Law of Boston to Rome. Where is he? Anybody know?

The Vatican can NOT remove a Sitting Bishop, that has been the rule within the Catholic Church since the Roman Empire. The way around this is simple, they promote such a incompetent to a place within the Vatican where he can no longer do any harm. Thus Pope John Paul II appears to have offered him to be head of one of the largest churches in Rome, in exchange for his resignation. Law appears to have accepted such an offer and left for Rome, to head a Church where he could do no more harm.

Law is over 80 years of age and as such can NOT even vote for the Pope, if and when Pope Francis dies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Francis_Law

Fuck him, fuck the vatican......

http://www.news.va/en/news/vatican-important-clarifications-to-un-committee-o

They clearly have failed to protect and they have failed to hold account....like pulling teeth all these
years..this makes no sense to me.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/AbuseTracker/

http://www.snapnetwork.org/