Dowling

[at4iowa]

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by nowalkin:

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by at4iowa:
Rape a child, no problem. Not only will you keep your job, we will transfer you to a different location and sweep it under the rug. Find out a good teacher is gay, no way we are hiring that sick freak! It's against Gods way.

If being against the above scenario makes me a moronic bigoted anti-Catholic, I'm flattered. One of the most corrupt organizations to ever exist. Catholics being Catholic.

Translation = He couldn't afford private school so he makes shit up.

What's he making up?

That a child was raped at Dowling, someone was transferred and the whole issue was swept under the rug.

Wow. It should be obvious that I was talking about the Catholic church and their history of reassigning priests who molested children in the first part and about Dowling or any other Catholic school, church, etc. in the second part. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. How you can read what I wrote and interpret it in the way you did is a bit disturbing.

 

[Arbitr8]

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by nowalkin:

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by at4iowa:
Rape a child, no problem. Not only will you keep your job, we will transfer you to a different location and sweep it under the rug. Find out a good teacher is gay, no way we are hiring that sick freak! It's against Gods way.

If being against the above scenario makes me a moronic bigoted anti-Catholic, I'm flattered. One of the most corrupt organizations to ever exist. Catholics being Catholic.

Translation = He couldn't afford private school so he makes shit up.

What's he making up?

That a child was raped at Dowling, someone was transferred and the whole issue was swept under the rug.

Wow. It should be obvious that I was talking about the Catholic church and their history of reassigning priests who molested children in the first part and about Dowling or any other Catholic school, church, etc. in the second part. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. How you can read what I wrote and interpret it in the way you did is a bit disturbing.

Actually my assessment was on point, you begin with an allegation about a specific school not hiring someone then you accuse them of sweeping a rape under the rug. You set yourself up on that one.

 

[nowalkin]

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by at4iowa:



Originally posted by Arbitr8:





Originally posted by nowalkin:



Originally posted by Arbitr8:



Originally posted by at4iowa:
Rape a child, no problem. Not only will you keep your job, we will transfer you to a different location and sweep it under the rug. Find out a good teacher is gay, no way we are hiring that sick freak! It's against Gods way.

If being against the above scenario makes me a moronic bigoted anti-Catholic, I'm flattered. One of the most corrupt organizations to ever exist. Catholics being Catholic.



Translation = He couldn't afford private school so he makes shit up.



What's he making up?




That a child was raped at Dowling, someone was transferred and the whole issue was swept under the rug.


Wow. It should be obvious that I was talking about the Catholic church and their history of reassigning priests who molested children in the first part and about Dowling or any other Catholic school, church, etc. in the second part. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. How you can read what I wrote and interpret it in the way you did is a bit disturbing.

Actually my assessment was on point, you begin with an allegation about a specific school not hiring someone then you accuse them of sweeping a rape under the rug. You set yourself up on that one.

 

[at4iowa]

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by nowalkin:

Wait, which bigots are we talking about? The Catholics at Dowling that discriminated against a gay teacher or the bigots that think all Priests are child molesters? Is making a claim that Priests have been convicted of child molestation a bigoted position? Or are you talking about the "Catholics being Catholics" statement?

Sorry nowalkin, I was mainly posting for at4Iowa. I forgot you were the OP.

Of course I wouldn't call the bolded quote above a bigoted position.

FACT: The website you linked was created by David F. Pierre, Jr. He is a graduate of Boston College and Catholic. He has written two books on media coverage of the Catholic child abuse scandals.

He may have just a wee bit of bias in his reporting. Thanks for the link, though. I'll take a look at his books. It sounds like interesting reading. Here is something I found regarding David Pierre. I'm not sure he should be your go to guy when it comes to defending the church.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2013/nbpierre.html





This post was edited on 4/7 4:10 PM by at4iowa

Is this one of those 'attack the source' things?

Unless you can show that the author lied about the facts he presented I don't really care about his bias or his religion or how nutty he is. If you have a link or facts that conflict with his information I'd be happy to read it. If is info is incorrect I'm interested in reading it.

When your source is clearly biased, yes, you should question the source. When your source makes an argument that "well the public schools abuse kids, too" as a defense against priests molesting kids, you should question the source. When the Vatican defrocks nearly 1000 priests and your source cries that it's just the media making stuff up, you should question the source. Seriously, do not believe that priests were molesting kids and the church was covering it up? Do you not think that is a huge problem? Why are you trying to defend something that on every level is pretty much the worst thing you can do to someone short of killing them? The media is not convicting these priests and defrocking them.

Let's look at your facts deeper.
1) Catholic priests abuse kids at a lower rate than the rest of the population. What's your point? Does that make covering up the fact that priests molested kids an appropriate thing to do? Do you think priests should be held to higher standards than the general population? I do. These guys are supposed to mold young men in to solid citizens and be moral examples of how to live. It's pretty hollow to say that other men are worse. Even if the statistic is true, what does that mean to you?

2) The vast bulk of reported cases is a historical anomaly and the church did what everyone else was doing and not reporting sex offenders? What? How is this defensible in any way? The church reassigned priests to different churches where the priests molested more children. THAT is a fact. It's not defensible. To say it was a historical anomaly is just a bunch of BS. There is no possible way to prove that. It's not a fact, it's an opinion and he tries to link it to the sexual revolution. Again, even if it were true, does it make a difference? Priests were molesting kids and the church was not doing anything to stop them.

3) Current accusations are rare. He links an article that shows credible accusations from current minors account for only 3% of accusations. How many minors come forward and say their priest is abusing them? He's trying to argue that because 10-17 year old boys aren't coming out and accusing their priests of molesting them it must not be happening. Give me a break! History shows us that kids don't talk about abuse until they are much older. Just because current minors aren't making accusations, doesn't mean it isn't happening. The accusations from adults who are finally at an emotionally mature state in that study were significantly higher. Oh, and that study he linked, it was conducted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. No bias there, I'm sure.

4) Public schools have child abusers, too. So what? That's an argument of support? Seriously, just because there are sexual perverts and child molesters in other places doesn't make it OK for the church to do it. That's an asinine argument.

5) The Catholic Church today is a model for the protection of children. That's an opinion statement. It's an opinion made by a Catholic person who has written two books trying to defend priests and the Catholic church. Since there is no way to really know if these measures are having an effect yet, I guess time will have to tell here. I guess I applaud the measures that were taken, but they were only taken after the church was found to be committing some of the most heinous crimes and cover-ups you can imagine. Are you trying to minimize the past by saying the future looks brighter? It doesn't work that way. The past is unbelievably awful and should never be minimized.

Hope that helps you. I think you are better off not trying to defend the Catholic church here. What they did is inexcusable and not defensible.

 

[Arbitr8]

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by nowalkin:

Wait, which bigots are we talking about? The Catholics at Dowling that discriminated against a gay teacher or the bigots that think all Priests are child molesters? Is making a claim that Priests have been convicted of child molestation a bigoted position? Or are you talking about the "Catholics being Catholics" statement?

Sorry nowalkin, I was mainly posting for at4Iowa. I forgot you were the OP.

Of course I wouldn't call the bolded quote above a bigoted position.

FACT: The website you linked was created by David F. Pierre, Jr. He is a graduate of Boston College and Catholic. He has written two books on media coverage of the Catholic child abuse scandals.

He may have just a wee bit of bias in his reporting. Thanks for the link, though. I'll take a look at his books. It sounds like interesting reading. Here is something I found regarding David Pierre. I'm not sure he should be your go to guy when it comes to defending the church.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2013/nbpierre.html






This post was edited on 4/7 4:10 PM by at4iowa

Is this one of those 'attack the source' things?

Unless you can show that the author lied about the facts he presented I don't really care about his bias or his religion or how nutty he is. If you have a link or facts that conflict with his information I'd be happy to read it. If is info is incorrect I'm interested in reading it.

When your source is clearly biased, yes, you should question the source. When your source makes an argument that "well the public schools abuse kids, too" as a defense against priests molesting kids, you should question the source. When the Vatican defrocks nearly 1000 priests and your source cries that it's just the media making stuff up, you should question the source. Seriously, do not believe that priests were molesting kids and the church was covering it up? Do you not think that is a huge problem? Why are you trying to defend something that on every level is pretty much the worst thing you can do to someone short of killing them? The media is not convicting these priests and defrocking them.

Let's look at your facts deeper.
1) Catholic priests abuse kids at a lower rate than the rest of the population. What's your point? Does that make covering up the fact that priests molested kids an appropriate thing to do? Do you think priests should be held to higher standards than the general population? I do. These guys are supposed to mold young men in to solid citizens and be moral examples of how to live. It's pretty hollow to say that other men are worse. Even if the statistic is true, what does that mean to you?

2) The vast bulk of reported cases is a historical anomaly and the church did what everyone else was doing and not reporting sex offenders? What? How is this defensible in any way? The church reassigned priests to different churches where the priests molested more children. THAT is a fact. It's not defensible. To say it was a historical anomaly is just a bunch of BS. There is no possible way to prove that. It's not a fact, it's an opinion and he tries to link it to the sexual revolution. Again, even if it were true, does it make a difference? Priests were molesting kids and the church was not doing anything to stop them.

3) Current accusations are rare. He links an article that shows credible accusations from current minors account for only 3% of accusations. How many minors come forward and say their priest is abusing them? He's trying to argue that because 10-17 year old boys aren't coming out and accusing their priests of molesting them it must not be happening. Give me a break! History shows us that kids don't talk about abuse until they are much older. Just because current minors aren't making accusations, doesn't mean it isn't happening. The accusations from adults who are finally at an emotionally mature state in that study were significantly higher. Oh, and that study he linked, it was conducted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. No bias there, I'm sure.

4) Public schools have child abusers, too. So what? That's an argument of support? Seriously, just because there are sexual perverts and child molesters in other places doesn't make it OK for the church to do it. That's an asinine argument.

5) The Catholic Church today is a model for the protection of children. That's an opinion statement. It's an opinion made by a Catholic person who has written two books trying to defend priests and the Catholic church. Since there is no way to really know if these measures are having an effect yet, I guess time will have to tell here. I guess I applaud the measures that were taken, but they were only taken after the church was found to be committing some of the most heinous crimes and cover-ups you can imagine. Are you trying to minimize the past by saying the future looks brighter? It doesn't work that way. The past is unbelievably awful and should never be minimized.

Hope that helps you. I think you are better off not trying to defend the Catholic church here. What they did is inexcusable and not defensible.

Let's get back to Dowling and the kids under the rug?

 

[timinatoria]

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by at4iowa:

Originally posted by timinatoria:

Originally posted by nowalkin:

Wait, which bigots are we talking about? The Catholics at Dowling that discriminated against a gay teacher or the bigots that think all Priests are child molesters? Is making a claim that Priests have been convicted of child molestation a bigoted position? Or are you talking about the "Catholics being Catholics" statement?

Sorry nowalkin, I was mainly posting for at4Iowa. I forgot you were the OP.

Of course I wouldn't call the bolded quote above a bigoted position.

FACT: The website you linked was created by David F. Pierre, Jr. He is a graduate of Boston College and Catholic. He has written two books on media coverage of the Catholic child abuse scandals.

He may have just a wee bit of bias in his reporting. Thanks for the link, though. I'll take a look at his books. It sounds like interesting reading. Here is something I found regarding David Pierre. I'm not sure he should be your go to guy when it comes to defending the church.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2013/nbpierre.html






This post was edited on 4/7 4:10 PM by at4iowa

Is this one of those 'attack the source' things?

Unless you can show that the author lied about the facts he presented I don't really care about his bias or his religion or how nutty he is. If you have a link or facts that conflict with his information I'd be happy to read it. If is info is incorrect I'm interested in reading it.

When your source is clearly biased, yes, you should question the source. When your source makes an argument that "well the public schools abuse kids, too" as a defense against priests molesting kids, you should question the source. When the Vatican defrocks nearly 1000 priests and your source cries that it's just the media making stuff up, you should question the source. Seriously, do not believe that priests were molesting kids and the church was covering it up? Do you not think that is a huge problem? Why are you trying to defend something that on every level is pretty much the worst thing you can do to someone short of killing them? The media is not convicting these priests and defrocking them.

Let's look at your facts deeper.
1) Catholic priests abuse kids at a lower rate than the rest of the population. What's your point? That these problems aren't exclusive to the church, as you and the media portray. Does that make covering up the fact that priests molested kids an appropriate thing to do? No. Do you think priests should be held to higher standards than the general population? As long as priests are human, they will have all the same human failings as the rest of society. I do. These guys are supposed to mold young men in to solid citizens and be moral examples of how to live. It's pretty hollow to say that other men are worse. Even if the statistic is true, what does that mean to you? It means the Church's problems aren't exclusive to them.



2) The vast bulk of reported cases is a historical anomaly and the church did what everyone else was doing and not reporting sex offenders? According to the statistics, yes. What? Read it again if you can't understand it. How is this defensible in any way? It's not a 'defense', it's a fact. The church reassigned priests to different churches where the priests molested more children. THAT is a fact. It's not defensible. To say it was a historical anomaly is just a bunch of BS. There is no possible way to prove that. It's not a fact, it's an opinion and he tries to link it to the sexual revolution. Again, even if it were true, does it make a difference? Priests were molesting kids and the church was not doing anything to stop them. The church was doing what they were told to do by 'experts' at the time. Treat them and they are 'cured'...which is what all of society was doing according to the author. If that's incorrect, I'd be happy to read about it.

3) Current accusations are rare. He links an article that shows credible accusations from current minors account for only 3% of accusations. How many minors come forward and say their priest is abusing them? I don't know, do you? He's trying to argue that because 10-17 year old boys aren't coming out and accusing their priests of molesting them it must not be happening. Do you have proof that is is? Give me a break! History shows us that kids don't talk about abuse until they are much older. Just because current minors aren't making accusations, doesn't mean it isn't happening. The accusations from adults who are finally at an emotionally mature state in that study were significantly higher. Oh, and that study he linked, it was conducted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. No bias there, I'm sure. I'll accept that, can you link another study?

4) Public schools have child abusers, too. So what? That's an argument of support? No, it's not. You really aren't understanding this are you. Seriously, just because there are sexual perverts and child molesters in other places doesn't make it OK for the church to do it. No one....not the author...not me...or anyone else in this thread said it was ever OK for the church to do that. This is where I almost gave up on even responding to you. The fact that you would interpret it that way tells me you're not really understanding any of what was written in the link. The link was about the media's coverage, and how the public has taken that portrayal and formed this opinion of the church that it's some sinister organization that loved hurting kids. In fact it's just showing that the Church is not immune to the sickness of child sexual abuse that is unfortunately woven into all parts of our society. That's an asinine argument. I guess it would be if that's what anyone was trying to argue, but they weren't.

5) The Catholic Church today is a model for the protection of children. That's an opinion statement. Fair enough. It's an opinion made by a Catholic person who has written two books trying to defend priests and the Catholic church. Since there is no way to really know if these measures are having an effect yet, I guess time will have to tell here. I guess I applaud the measures that were taken, but they were only taken after the church was found to be committing some of the most heinous crimes and cover-ups you can imagine. Not every member of the church was a part of this...you know that right? Are you trying to minimize the past by saying the future looks brighter? No, not at all. It doesn't work that way. The past is unbelievably awful and should never be minimized.

Hope that helps you. I think you are better off not trying to defend the Catholic church here. What they did is inexcusable and not defensible.

 

[at4iowa]

I'm not going to copy the entire string of posts here, but I'll give you my final rebuttal to your points.

1) Nobody is saying child molestation is exclusive to the Catholic church. I have never made that argument and have never seen it portrayed that way in the national media. Yes, it is a prevalent problem in society. Nobody is blaming only the Catholic church. Look at the Jerry Sandusky scandal. That was a huge story, probably the biggest news story of the year when it came out. The fact is that child molestation is awful and the fact that the church tried to cover it up HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS of times is what makes it even worse. It wasn't just the sick perverts that were committing a crime. It went to the top of the chain.

Men are men, no doubt. How can you not hold priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. to a higher standard, though? Do you hold anyone to higher moral standards? The fact that these men who are leaders in the church, who are responsible for laying out the moral compass for their followers yet commit horrible crimes against children is a big part of why this was and continues to be a huge story.

2) Child molestation has always been a felony. Always. It's never been appropriate to look the other way and do nothing to help the victims. Do you honestly believe this? Do you really believe that the standard operating procedure for child molesters was to NOT convict them of crimes and just try to give them some psychological help? Sure, it's a good idea to give them psychological help...in prison. To suggest that the church did nothing wrong because that was just the way things were done is really disturbing. You would have to be completely morally bankrupt to think for a second that what the church did was appropriate.

Also, do you really believe that priests just started molesting kids during so called sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s? It was just a temporary spike? Come on. The reason there was a spike in numbers is because people started finding out that they were not alone and started coming forward. You have to commit yourself to some serious intellectual dishonesty to believe that this was only a problem for a few decades.

3) Again, you are taking your "facts" from a report in 2011 conducted by the Catholic church itself. They used a statistic that only 3% of claims were by current minors to show that reports of new abuse are down. Do some research on your own about why this might be complete BS. First, it is a known fact that minors, for many reasons do not come forward. You can start reading about it here: http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse . Second, have I mentioned that the study was done by the Catholic church? I think I have. Do you think there may be some reasons why they could be a bit biased in their reporting?

4) I agree with you here, but it's not at all pertinent to the main argument. Yes, there are horrible things happening all around us. It's a deflection at best. See point 1. Nobody has said that it's only a problem in the Catholic church. Wherever sexual abuse occurs, it makes the news. When it continues to happen and thousands of people within the same organization are convicted, it stays in the news. When the same organization is found guilty of covering up the abuse, it's even worse. Making the claim that it happens in public schools, does nothing to help the case. This guy is convinced that the church is being unfairly targeted. Well, guess what, they should be. It's a scandal of Biblical proportions. It would be like Stalin saying "yeah I killed a ton of my own people, but look at Hitler". It's just not a point that helps your case in any way.

5) Of course not every member of the church was involved. I know there are great priests and wonderful people in the Catholic church. No doubt about that. How many people need to be involved before it's a problem? When the cover up goes all the way up to the Vatican, it's kind of a big deal. You already agree that this point is not a fact, so I won't argue further.

In summary, what the Catholic church did is not defensible. They are not being picked on. The VATICAN has defrocked 1000 priests in the last 10 years. The media didn't do that, the courts didn't do that. The church itself is doing that. To say that the church is being unfairly accused is just not accurate. Hopefully, the church is in a better place now, but the history is undeniably horrible.

This post was edited on 4/8 10:37 AM by at4iowa