The Doctor Speaks...

[The Hen]

Here rape is without consent. Force has nothing to do with it.

A minor cannot give consent.

[Sean]

Scoot, face it mate.

Your're trying to debate with the kind of low-life who will bend over backwards to defend cunts who use their influence over children to molest them.
She's no better than them or any other cunt who defends and/or covers up their actions.

MY advice is stick her back on ignore. It's a much more pleasant board that way.

[loCAtek]

Are you seriously suggesting that most of the priests involved engaged in nothing more with their victims than viewing pornography?

No, I was referring to the fact that most sex offenders; with includes but is not exclusive to priests, are charged with viewing child pornography.
That charge does not require any other participant (or victim) being present.

And whenever their victims were underage (i.e. in almost all cases),

Please provide those stats and in which states; Stoat claimed 17 was underage, but that varies according to which state. Many states say 16 is of legal age to consent, or even to marry.

"forcible" is irrelevant, being under the age of consent makes it RAPE

Which act of legal sex offense are you speaking of? 'Lewd acts' such as just kissing a teenager? or perhaps; 'Possession of child pornography' where no physical contact with a minor was involved? Those offenses are not 'rape' according to the law, how ever be it that they are sex crimes.
Over-generalizing is not permissible in court.

The US justice system is rather like the atheist philosophy (I thought) - in that the facts have to be proven rationally, and not by the power of emotion.

[loCAtek]

Here rape is without consent. Force has nothing to do with it.

A minor cannot give consent.

Very well, Hen. Regardless that you voluntarily consented to sex at the young age of... well, below the age of consent; you're saying that now you were raped?

While the Gob's exploits as a teenager under 18, are now rape too?

I wonder why you didn't report the perpetrators and just 'covered it up' then?

[Scooter]

I was referring to the fact that most sex offenders; with includes but is not exclusive to priests, are charged with viewing child pornography.

You have presented no evidence that most of the sexual offence charges against priests involved only the viewing of chid pornography.

And whenever their victims were underage (i.e. in almost all cases),

Please provide those stats and in which states; Stoat claimed 17 was underage, but that varies according to which state.

22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.

link

The ages of consent in North America for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction...all US states set their limits between 16 and 18.

link
By interpolation, one third or 9% of the victims can reasonably be estimated to be 15 (since 27% are between 15 and 17). Therefore, at an absolute minimum, 82.6% of the victims were younger than the lowest U.S. age of consent. Again by interpolation, 40% of the 16 year olds live in the 20 states where the age of consent is 17 or 18, and 20% of the 17 year olds live in the 10 states where the age of consent is 18. Since those two groups include the most populous states of California, Texas, New York and Florida, we can conclude with high confidence that the additional percentage of underage victims is 5.4%, for a total of 88%.

And that does not even account for those states with an age of consent that is normally 16 or 17, but where it increases to 18 when it involves a person "in a position of authority". Therefore, to reiterate

their victims were underage...in almost all cases

Which act of legal sex offense are you speaking of?

27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

In addition:

the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations

link
So a clear majority definitely involved penetration of some kind, plus an unknown proportion of those cases in which the sexual act(s) were not specified.

Oh yeah, from the same source:

There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse.

So...

almost all were underage,

a clear majority involved penetration,

a large amount of which was forced.

Any way one slices it, it means CHILD RAPE

[thestoat]

Some are "standard" sex offences, others are sex offenses against children - this is pedophilia, and it is this to which I am referring since you spoke of the "priests are pedophiles myth"

I beg your pardon but that's incorrect.

From, Facts about Sex Offenders; Office of the Attorney General; State of California;
Myth: Child sexual abusers are only attracted to children [are pedophiles] and are not capable of appropriate sexual relationships.

False. While there is a small subset of child sexual abusers who are exclusively attracted to children, the majority of the individuals who sexually abuse children are (or have previously been) attracted to adults.

While a sex offense is a criminal act, and therefore prosecutable. If it's being prosecuted, it's not being covered up. So, you're examples are moot.

That is a poor attempt at covering your statements.

Have the legal definitions been helpful? They demonstrate that abuses occur at all walks of society, not just religious institutions; which is why the legal system does not discriminate against any persons or occupations.

No, not helpful, since once again you completely misunderstand the statement and address a point nobody has made.

[loCAtek]

Thanks for the link Scooter which says, as I've been saying;

In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups

[loCAtek]

No, not helpful, since once again you completely misunderstand the statement and address a point nobody has made.

Very well, I await your clarification.

[Scooter]

Thanks for the link Scooter which says, as I've been saying;

It also completely demolishes the ridiculous claims you made now that you have decided to make the defence of child raping priests your mission in life. So I'm glad you appreciated the corrections.

[Scooter]

In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups

Leaving aside the fact that the statement is self-serving and has no basis in fact (the notion that 5% of teachers, or doctors, or social workers has sexually abused children is preposterous), the estimates for child rape by priests come from the John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. bishops (that fact alone raises suspicions of bias).

And I frankly don't understand this insistence on claiming that the rate of child rapists among priests is comparable to the general population. Call me crazy, but I would have expected that priests would have a much LOWER proclivity to commit any sort of crime than the general population. I don't see it as absolution if priests had managed to limit the rates of child rape to correspond to the general population. In fact, I would consider anything greater than one tenth of the prevalence in the general population to be a major catastrophe.

[Gob]

The "John jay Report" was just a survey, it has no real relevance to what is.

The study was based on surveys completed by 97% of the Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims. That information was filtered, so that the research team did not have access to the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The report presents aggregate findings. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed

Utterly worthless.

[thestoat]

Very well, I await your clarification.

No, there really is no point. You have given me no indication that you can understand what people write on there forums or that you are able to stay on topic and address what is written. You consistently manage to go off at a tangent, ignoring what is actually said and inventing completely fictitious statements that nobody has made to justify a completely different point that nobody disputes.

[loCAtek]

There it is, and he bails

[thestoat]

Life's too short. I'm not sure if you really can't follow the threads (bad) or if you are pretending that they are too complicated for you (bad)

[Gob]

Or just playing stupid to get attention (bad.) Or being annoying just to get attention (bad.) Or you have no other way of operating but to just fuck up your relationship with most of the board members (bad.)

[loCAtek]

Ha, priests are not human? I thought that was the atheist argument?

In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups

Leaving aside the fact that the statement is self-serving and has no basis in fact (the notion that 5% of teachers, or doctors, or social workers has sexually abused children is preposterous), the estimates for child rape by priests come from the John Jay Report, commissioned by the U.S. bishops (that fact alone raises suspicions of bias).

And I frankly don't understand this insistence on claiming that the rate of child rapists among priests is comparable to the general population. Call me crazy, but I would have expected that priests would have a much LOWER proclivity to commit any sort of crime than the general population. I don't see it as absolution if priests had managed to limit the rates of child rape to correspond to the general population. In fact, I would consider anything greater than one tenth of the prevalence in the general population to be a major catastrophe.

Why? If you're an atheist, then they are human, and prone to all human vices; as per capita all human occupations are.

[Scooter]

I expect that anyone who signs up to abide by a code of ethics will operate within it, regardless of whether it is purported to be divinely inspired or is completely of human hands. If it had been discovered in my profession (accounting) that 4 or 5% of its members (or even the completely lowballed 1.5%) had committed professional misconduct of comparable severity to sexual abuse of children (acts of fraud, theft, etc.), it would have been considered a catastrophe. NO ONE would have attempted to justify it by claiming that it was no worse than in other professions. NO ONE would have been trying to excuse it by reference to all of the "good" that the accounting profession has been responsible for. ALL of the guilty, including anyone who had known and had not reported it, would have been expelled from membership. The entire profession would have turned itself inside out to attempt to figure out what went wrong, and would not have resorted to looking for scapegoats in an attempt to excuse itself from making the necessary changes. There would have been no attempt to shield anyone from criminal prosecution nor to stymie attempts by the victims to recoup damages from the perpetrators.

I don't think it is the slightest bit unreasonable to expect no less than that from priests. Accountants are only human too, last time I checked.