Spoilsport!

[Sean]

The monastery of Santa Croce has been shut down by the Vatican, after reports of unorthodox practices


Pope Benedict XVII has closed a monastery where a stripper turned nun was a star attraction.

The monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, Rome, which holds some of the Church's most prized relics. Inset: Pope Benedict. Source: The Australian

POPE Benedict XVI has shut down a famous community in Rome that organised dances by a former nightclub dancer nun and hosted VIPs like Madonna, earning the disfavour of the Vatican.

The closure of the monastery of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, which holds some of the Church's most prized relics, was reported by Italian dailies La Stampa and Il Foglio.

The reports said the community of Cistercian monks based at the church for more than five centuries was being transferred to other churches in Italy.

Contacted by AFP, the Vatican did not deny the reports.

The basilica had become a hub for the Friends of Santa Croce, an aristocratic group, and had been criticised for some unorthodox practices including dances in which nuns pranced around the altar.

One of the nuns who performed at the church, a former disco dancer, can be seen in a YouTube video performing a modern dance with a crucifix.

The basilica's longtime abbot, Simone Fioraso, a flamboyant former Milan fashion designer, was already moved out of the basilica two years ago.

The ban was adopted in March by the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life following an inquiry but has not yet been made public, the reports said.

Pope Benedict, the leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics, is also the bishop of Rome, so the basilica is part of his diocese.

Santa Croce in Gerusalemme, built around a chapel dating to the fourth century, is one of Rome's oldest and most prestigious churches.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/entertain ... 6063198732

[thestoat]

Wow. how odd their priorities.

Letters from 1966 between the then Archbishop of Canterbury and a bishop show the Church agreed that a convicted paedophile should be ordained.

The correspondence emerged in a report into the Church of England's failure to support victims of Roy Cotton that was published online and then removed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13560976

(I know one story is about Catholics, the other Protestants - I lump them all the same )

[dgs49]

Consider the following:

All Christian denominations believe in the concept of redemption - in fact it is their stock in trade. That is to say, the Church (purports to) takes sinners, forgive their sins, and helps them to amend their lives.

If a person used to be a stripper, then, through the grace of God changed her life and joined a convent. Is this not a GOOD thing? There is nothing in this story even to hint that the dancing she was doing at the monastery was inappropriate in any way. Maybe it was - the implication is clearly that she was stripping for the assembled monks. But it doesn't actually SAY that, does it? It would be unusual to dance at a service in a monastery, but if that's the way she glorified God, who are we to judge?

As for hosting Madonna...didn't Christ come for sinners? Who are they supposed to host? Billy Graham? The Dahli Lama? What's wrong with a notorious sinner spending time there?

And as for the other story, again, is someone FOREVER forbidden to become a priest if he has EVER sinned? Not in any Christian church I know of. If sinners can't repent and be saved, what is the point?

I wouldn't make him the chaplain of the local Boy Scout troop, but the implication of the article is that the Church is somehow required to be bound by the fact that this applicant sinned in the past. Which makes no logical or theological sense, if you believe Christ's message.

[loCAtek]

Wow. how odd their priorities.

Letters from 1966 between the then Archbishop of Canterbury and a bishop show the Church agreed that a convicted paedophile should be ordained.

The correspondence emerged in a report into the Church of England's failure to support victims of Roy Cotton that was published online and then removed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-13560976

(I know one story is about Catholics, the other Protestants - I lump them all the same )

The 60's crisis, makes them all the same how?

[thestoat]

Lo, are you trying to suggest that some in the Catholic church are not still up to their pedophiliac ways?

[loCAtek]

Where's the winkie stoat? Or do I have to poke ya in the eye?

[thestoat]

Ah, cool - I thought you were suggesting that some of the Catholic sect were not still into little boys and girls

[Sean]

Actually Stoat I am willing to suggest that some of the Catholic sect are not still into little boys and girls.











The rest, of course, are.

[thestoat]

As usual, Sean, we're completely in agreement

[loCAtek]

The jokes on you, most were never into such things.

So, you have no winkie, pity that.

[Sean]

Pardon?

[thestoat]

most were never into such things.

Very carefully stated there, lo. It is quite possible "most" were never in to such things. Many are - and are to this day.

The 2004 John Jay Report was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.
The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

So, you have no winkie, pity that.

As Sean says - pardon??

[loCAtek]

Not to say their actions were pardonable, but 'many' in this case, is such a small statically minority, that's it's unfair to judge the whole history of the organization by it.

My neighbor is a registered sex offender, and there has been at least one other in the vicinity since I've lived here; that doesn't make the whole trailerhood, for whole period of it's operation a community of child molesters. That's faulty or biased logic.




BTW - Winkie is American slang although the site says it's used in OZ too.

[Sean]

I know what the word means, what I don't understand is what your comment means...

[thestoat]

My neighbor is a registered sex offender, and there has been at least one other in the vicinity since I've lived here;

Wow - I didn't realised you lived near so many priests

I am well up on my stats knowledge, lo. My point is that these people are put in positions of trust by gods men. And however you look at it, over four THOUSAND priests accused is a massively disgusting number. MASSIVE. And remember my previous comment - I'll quote it for you again

Letters from 1966 between the then Archbishop of Canterbury and a bishop show the Church agreed that a convicted paedophile should be ordained.

That lot should be shot. I know personally of two cases of priests abusing their position. "Fortunately" (for them) the young girls in question were 16, so legal in the UK. I found it still disgusting.

[thestoat]

... and by the way, how did you manage to deduce I therefore have no winkie?

[loCAtek]

Double entendre: no 'wink smiley'/ no winkie.


As for the Op you're equating the gravity of the crime, with it's frequency; which in reality is about as average as all other social organizations.

I do know a thing about Catholics; maybe you weren't aware that I was Mexican; both sides of my family are Mexican; and traditionally for centuries, Mexicans are predominately Catholic? We tend to breed like rabbits on fertility medication, so I know a lot of Mexican Catholics (and that's just my family}

...I only know of one pedophile in my circle of family.

...but I don't think the totally of my family is disgusting. I try to keep it in scientific, statistic, perspective.

[Sean]

Double entendre: no 'wink smiley'/ no winkie.


As for the Op you're equating the gravity of the crime, with it's frequency;

Some crimes only need to be comitted once to be considered extremely grave.

which in reality is about as average as all other social organizations.

I'm assuming you have numbers for this...

I do know a thing about Catholics; maybe you weren't aware that I was Mexican; both sides of my family are Mexican; and traditionally for centuries, Mexicans are predominately Catholic? We tend to breed like rabbits on fertility medication, so I know a lot of Mexican Catholics (and that's just my family}

And yet you didn't know what the sign of the cross was about. It's obvious that knowledge of Catholicism is not genetic amongst Mexicans as you seem to think...

...I only know of one pedophile in my circle of family.

...but I don't think the totally of my family is disgusting. I try to keep it in scientific, statistic, perspective.

Maybe if the rest of your family protected that person from the law whilst allowing him to carry on those activities you'd see it differently.

[loCAtek]

As for the Op you're equating the gravity of the crime, with it's frequency;

Some crimes only need to be comitted once to be considered extremely grave.

Absolutely, child molestation is very grave, but that doesn't make it more common in the Catholic church than any other organization. Your request for stats is a valid question. I'll answer it below;

I do know a thing about Catholics; maybe you weren't aware that I was Mexican; both sides of my family are Mexican; and traditionally for centuries, Mexicans are predominately Catholic? We tend to breed like rabbits on fertility medication, so I know a lot of Mexican Catholics (and that's just my family}

And yet you didn't know what the sign of the cross was about. It's obvious that knowledge of Catholicism is not genetic amongst Mexicans as you seem to think...

True, I am not a Catholic like the rest of my family, as my mother turned atheist and stopped us going to church when I was very young. If I need a label, I ususally say I'm Buddhist. However, the rest of my extended family still practiced Catholicism, and very devotedly at that. My father's side, followed the tradition that the patriarch was also the family liaison to the gospel. My grandfather on my father's side was regularly asked for blessings for travel and the like because he knew all the benedictions. Even though I don't know it well, I'm sure they did.

...I only know of one pedophile in my circle of family.

...but I don't think the totally of my family is disgusting. I try to keep it in scientific, statistic, perspective.

Maybe if the rest of your family protected that person from the law whilst allowing him to carry on those activities you'd see it differently.

Not a maybe, they dd and do, hide or deny it. The grandfather on my mother's side, the non-church going side, was never prosecuted for what he did to my mother. Please, don't confuse my two grandfathers. Somethings the grandfather on my mother's side, was arrested, but his repeated assaults on her and other female family members, were not among them. They were just women and girls, in his culture, they were just property to do with as he pleased. ...that's one reason, my sister and I were raised two states away from him in California; also why my aunts moved out of his house and in with us, during their teenage years. The last time I saw him , he tried to grab my ass. At any time, in all those years, was he ever reported? No. The solution was just to not leave him alone with any girls, but the reason was never talked about.


So, no i don't see it differently.

The data;

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

[Sean]

Not a maybe, they dd and do, hide or deny it. The grandfather on my mother's side, the non-church going side, was never prosecuted for what he did to my mother. Please, don't confuse my two grandfathers. Somethings the grandfather on my mother's side, was arrested, but his repeated assaults on her and other female family members, were not among them. They were just women and girls, in his culture, they were just property to do with as he pleased. ...that's one reason, my sister and I were raised two states away from him in California; also why my aunts moved out of his house and in with us, during their teenage years. The last time I saw him , he tried to grab my ass. At any time, in all those years, was he ever reported? No. The solution was just to not leave him alone with any girls, but the reason was never talked about.


So, no i don't see it differently.

Not quite the same though is it...
What the Catholic Church do to protect paedophiles is more akin to your entire family (not just some, all of them) making sure that nobody found out about him whist letting him continue to be a girl guide leader.
Before you answer, I'm not saying he was a girl scout leader... it's an analogy.

The priesthood is being cast as the refuge of pederasts. In fact, priests seem to abuse children at the same rate as everyone else.

The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts. It's no wonder that, back in 2002—when the last Catholic sex-abuse scandal was making headlines—a Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll found that 64 percent of those queried thought Catholic priests "frequently'' abused children.

Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."

Since the mid-1980s, insurance companies have offered sexual misconduct coverage as a rider on liability insurance, and their own studies indicate that Catholic churches are not higher risk than other congregations. Insurance companies that cover all denominations, such as Guide One Center for Risk Management, which has more than 40,000 church clients, does not charge Catholic churches higher premiums. "We don't see vast difference in the incidence rate between one denomination and another," says Sarah Buckley, assistant vice president of corporate communications. "It's pretty even across the denominations." It's been that way for decades. While the company saw an uptick in these claims by all types of churches around the time of the 2002 U.S. Catholic sex-abuse scandal, Eric Spacick, Guide One's senior church-risk manager, says "it's been pretty steady since." On average, the company says 80 percent of the sexual misconduct claims they get from all denominations involve sexual abuse of children. As a result, the more children's programs a church has, the more expensive its insurance, officials at Guide One said.

Thank you for the data but it offers no evidence whatsoever about paedophiles in other "social organisations".