NO.

This is the myth that will not die, largely because it has become the fall back argument for defenders of the catholic church (including the current pope) who can no longer pretend that these are isolated and rare occurrences. I referenced the Australian royal commission because it is, so far, the only exhaustive national investigation (there have been other state-based inquiries that also make chilling reading).

You can find the commissions reports here:
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report

As I said above, whether this is an "institutional" problem or a catholic problem became a de facto question for the commission. They were initially going to investigate catholic institutions, but their terms of reference were hugely expanded to include any and every institution in the country. You can see from the published reports that they published particular findings with respect to:
"Particular institutions

• Volume 11, Historical residential institutions describes what we learned about survivors' experiences of, and institutional responses to, child sexual abuse in residential institutions pre-1990.
• Volume 12, Contemporary out-of-home care examines what we learned about institutional responses to child sexual abuse in contemporary out-of-home care. It includes 22 recommendations.
• Volume 13, Schools describes what we learned about institutional responses to child sexual abuse in schools. It includes eight recommendations.
• Volume 14, Sport, recreation, arts, culture, community and hobby groups looks at what we learned about institutional responses to child sexual abuse in sport and recreation contexts. It includes four recommendations.
• Volume 15, Contemporary detention environments reviews what we learned about institutional responses to child sexual abuse in contemporary detention environments. It includes 15 recommendations.
• Volume 16, Religious institutions examines what we learned about institutional responses to child sexual abuse in religious institutions. It includes 58 recommendations."

There were offences and failings of due care in many different institutional settings. Ultimately, though, the majority of offences were committed, not just in religious contexts, but within catholic institutions. There undeniably is something particular to these catholic controlled environments.

The best estimate of the proportion of child sex offenders in general population is 1% or less.
The "typical" offender in this group is an older brother who assaults a younger sibling, or a father who molests his child. "Typically" one or two victims.
The result of our royal commission was 7% of priests received accusations of child sex assault. There was no attempt to extrapolate how many more priests were offenders who did not have victims come forward (although the reasons why victims are reluctant to do so was discussed). There are probably many more, but at least 7% had living accusers.
The "typical" offender in the priesthood had multiple victims, sometimes hundreds over decades. Collectively, the victims are numbered in the thousands and, again, far, far more than any other institution.

To suggest that there is not a problem, or a set of problems, that is particular to the catholic church is just plain dishonest. It is in no way defensible on the basis of painstakingly assembled facts.

We can't expect much to change while the catholic church won't acknowledge this truth. And yet, they still won't.

I think it's time to do away with celibacy requirements for priests.
---

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Consider this. There were particular "clusters" of offending priests. Some dioceses more than twice as bad as average. Some institutions worse still. Some brotherhoods particularly bad.

The Brothers of St John of God run orphanages, hospitals, mental health care facilities. More than 40% of the brothers between 1950 and 2009 were accused of child sexual assault. If you were a brother there who was not molesting kids, you probably felt left out (but none of them felt much compunction to stop what was an open secret among them).

Surely they've been hounded out of existence, right? Wrong, of course.
Here's their response, from their current webpage:

"The life of the Australasian Province is being lived out in times in which there has been a significant change in the way in which the Brothers understand their role in the flow of the charism of Hospitality into, and within, the life of the People of God. This has resulted in the establishment of a corporate ministry of the Brothers that is called GRANADA OUTREACH."

If you need a translation: No acknowledgement of responsibility, but they have restructured their assets to defeat the potential claims of victims.

Check out this cheerful, colourful, child-focussed home page for the catholic salesians.
https://www.salesians.org.au/

17.2% of their priests accused child sex offence perpetrators (strangely not mentioned in all their marketing babble)

Sure, I'd send my children to them for some "Joy, Fun, Friends, Faith and Festivity". What could go wrong?

I'll go toe to toe with anyone vis a vis the Church.

What's wrong with his statement?

The Church could bring all the pedo priests back to Vatican City and execute them. Sovereign nation with an absolute monarch has its positives.

---

A false humanity is used to impose its opposite, by people whose cruelty is equalled only by their arrogance

Not going to engage, you clearly feel you have a high grasp of Catholicism and yet have never understood why the Church requires Priests to be "married to the church" no way I will be able to explain it better than the your previous instructors.

But Ultimately, its just a bunch of made up rules, so sure any of them can be changed.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

There's a lot they could do, but in fact they continue to extend protections to pedophiles.

The countries (including Australia and USA) that extend formal diplomatic recognition to the Vatican give its senior officials and head offices in our countries the same protection we afford embassies and staff of (real) foreign nations. Their documents cannot be subpoenaed and their senior officials cannot be forced to attend court or provide information. It doesn't apply to mere priests, but high catholic officials enjoy full diplomatic immunity.

Although we have an extradition treaty with Italy (and pretty much every civilized nation) we don't have one with the vatican. There are alleged offenders wanted by Australia, the US and other countries who are "hiding out" in the vatican and will likely never face justice. The vatican won't even release information on their own investigations of accused pedophile priests.

If we were to rely on the vatican to dispense justice, we'd be disappointed. They continued to promote Pell over the decades while rumours and accusations swirled around him. The wonder is that Pell voluntarily returned to face charges (which he no doubt regrets). If he hadn't, he'd be continuing a life of privilege behind vatican walls as one of the pope's most trusted friends and advisors. He would be literally untouchable by the law.

Conversations on the topic go awry when people assume basic goodwill on the part of the catholic church in seeking justice. That is not their interest. It is contrary to their interest. They will continue to protect their church at any cost, and with considerable weapons at their disposal.

You mean the ones in Catholic school or the Jesuits?

Sentenced today.

Six years. Non-parol (minimum) of 3 years and 8 months.

Chalk one up for the rule of law; & an unfamiliar failure to protect their own for the catholic church. I hope it becomes more familiar. Imagine the end of immunity for the most sordid of crimes, and full accountability before the law for the privileged hierarchy of a previously almost untouchable institution.

Just for the sake of discussion,...says who?

We're not talking about age. Pedophiles aren't attracted to people of a certain numerical age; they're attracted to people who are prepubescent.

Duffy's point is valid. If we're going to accept that a person's sexual orientation is set and outside of their control (and we see more and more cases of parents who are claiming their kid is gay at very young ages), then I'm not sure I see why that's different for pedophiles just because we find their preference disgusting. It wasn't long ago that lots and lots of people found homosexuality disgusting.

This is NOT, I repeat NOT, an attempt to paint homosexuality with the same brush as pedophilia. However, many of the arguments in favor of homosexual rights and against homophobic laws and treatment are centered around the idea that sexual preference is not just a behavior, nor is it something a person can control. A gay man or lesbian simply are attracted to members of the same sex. I'm not certain why, from an objective standpoint, those same arguments couldn't be made for pedophiles.

That said, the primary problem with pedophilia is the actual behavior. There's almost no situation, in our current society, in which a pedophile can act out his sexual preference without taking advantage of a child who is not in a position to consent or understand what's happening. It's clearly unacceptable, as it is for an adult to engage in sex with another adult who couldn't consent.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

The second sentence puts the first in proper context, so then what's the purpose of pointing out that homosexual impulses or preferences are beyond one's conscious control? Obviously, the distinction lies in the purposeful gratification of those urges and how they either respect one's autonomy with consensual sex, or they don't, as it is in every case of child sexual assault.

I don't think anyone would argue that a pedophile's sexual attraction to prepubescent children is voluntary; in fact, it's widely recognized as compulsive and insuppressible. It's an argument without a purpose.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I understand, but pedophiles aren't vilified and hated just for when they actually assault a child. They're vilified for having the urges in the first place, and labeled as sick. Their sexual preference is, for all intents and purposes, legally prohibited. For example, if a heterosexual wants to abstain from sex, they can still satisfy their urges with porn. All sorts of porn of almost any strain. However, a pedophile obviously can't do that. Simply possessing such material is legally prohibited, I believe in some cases, even if it doesn't involve any real children.

A straight man can go to the beach and admire half naked women. A pedophile can't go to a playground and admire children. It's just not acceptable. And I'm not arguing that it should be, just noting the seeming contradiction. Not sure how to reconcile the view that sexual preference or orientation has to be honored for homosexuals or bisexuals or heterosexuals because it isn't a choice, but that sexual preference for pedophiles is a sickness, and that we should probably just kill them (a view expressed by several in this thread and elsewhere).

One of the main arguments used in favor of same sex marriage is "you can't control who you love." In the case of pedophiles, society attempts to enforce the exact opposite mindset.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

. . . "you can't control who you love / [or are attracted to]" . . . and that's a key difference.

In same sex or heterosexual relationships, the other party shares the same attraction (hopefully), and it is that mutual attraction that forms the basis for consensual relationship.

Pedophiles aren't attracted to other pedophiles. There is no mutual attraction. It's not the same.

You're kidding, right? There a an awful lot of heterosexual women who are not attracted to the heterosexual men that want to date them, and vice versa. There are an awful lot of heterosexual men and women who are not attracted to the homosexual men and women who might find them attractive. Homosexuals aren't only attracted to homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't only attracted to heterosexuals.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Not kidding. And what you point out is correct, but not the counter to my point. To clarify ...

The attraction to/from the other party has to be able to be reciprocated, willingly. When both parties have the same orientation, can it be likely to reciprocate the other's advances. It's like a prerequisite, otherwise it's wrong. In same sex, and in heterosexual situations. Homosexual attracted to a heterosexual won't likely work because the orientations are different, and thus the mutual reciprocity that is the basis of consent is unlikely to be there.

Extending your examples - The heterosexual dude looking at women on the beach. That's creepy. But not if the woman reacts in a reciprocal way. Then it's flirting. The pedo looking at kids on the playground. That's creepy. Always. Because a kid does not have the same orientation, and is therefore never going to have the reciprocal attraction, so it's always wrong (pedophilia).

Here's my point .. Re: the argument that pedophilia should be viewed similarly to how we view same-sex or heterosexual attractions, it can't. Because the other party (the kid) that's the target of the attraction doesn't "match" in orientation to be able to express any reciprocity.

M/M, F/F, M/F (heterosexual), F/M (heterosexual); Note that (a) the other party shares the orientation and (b) is mutually attracted. To view Pedophilia in a similar way, would mean P/P, and that's not what the attraction is. A pedophile is not attracted to another pedophile.

What does that have to do with whether or not the sexual preference /orientation in question in innate and protected or a sickness?


So by your reasoning, it's "wrong" for a homosexual man to be attracted to a heterosexual man, because said attraction is unlikely to be returned?


Your definition of what is right or wrong for a person to feel is entirely based on whether another person would return their feelings? That's insane.


The argument made in favor of gay rights, is that the homosexual person's sexual preference isn't morally wrong, because it isn't a choice, it's genetic, or innate, or otherwise outside the control of the person. That definition does not, and can not be dependent on whether someone else reciprocates. Reciprocation is fair game when we move the conversation further on to taking action on a sexual preference, but that's separate from the issue of orientation.


Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Yes, a pedophile isn't attracted to other pedophiles. But a homosexual isn't attracted specifically to other homosexuals. A heterosexual isn't attracted specifically to only other heterosexuals. Your analogy isn't consistent throughout. Sexual attraction in homosexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc isn't limited to others with the same orientation.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Dunno about innateness, or protected classes, as I didn't start from there. But thinking about it in more formal terms then...

Let’s denote (A -> B) as an attraction from A to B. A and B refer to categorical classes (e.g. Orientation, but could be Gender, Object, etc).
Then let P(B->A) denote the probability that there’s the same attraction going back from B->A.

So P(B->A | A->B) is the probability of an attraction from B to A, given the conditional attraction from A to B.

I'm saying that if P() is equal or close to 1.0, then you have a healthy/right/etc. relationship that’s mutually balanced. If P() is low or zero, then the actions that result take you to the creepy/sickiness end of the spectrum.

But challenge it with a counterfactual situation where A and B are different classes, and in which there is a P(B->A | A->B)=1 or close to it. I can’t think of one, but I can think of lots of confirmatory cases...

Gay -> Straight; P(Straight->Gay | Gay->Straight) not close to 1;
Crazed fan -> Star Celeb; P() not close to 1;
Pedo -> Child; P() = 0
LivePerson -> DeadPerson; P() = 0

Note that whatever you sub in for A and B, as P() goes to zero, you get closer into the creepy and depraved spaces. So, my framework and formalism holds up for the creepyness measure.

Let’s apply the formalism to specific individuals rather than general categories. Denoted with lower case.
a -> b; P(b->a | a->b)=1; For n=1 instances, you can always find exceptions, in which case it’s no longer probabilities, but actuals.

Sub in an actual Pedophile and actual kid, P( ) = 0 always.
Sub in my wife and I as ‘a’ and ‘b’, instances of differing religion, culture, race, and more, and our actual P()=1. Because the attraction is mutually reciprocated, in our instance. It's a beautiful thing.

I'd say the equations seem to hold up well.

Right or wrongness is based on the actions taken as a result of those feelings, not right or wrong about the feelings. Feeling unrequited love is integral to the human condition and a source of great Art. I meant that it’s when actions are taken by a person, would right/wrong comes into play.

Fan -> Celeb; P()=low; Fans always have feelings for celebs. But certain actions arising from those feelings can easily become stalking. Not right.


Ok then. As earlier, my argument on the rightness or wrongness is about the actions following sexual preference’s feelings, and not whether those feelings are innate. Isn’t it only after some Action is taken can cops and other legal entities come in? Otherwise there’s no crime unless the person “does something.”



Working through the proposed formalism to model social relations outlined earlier, it seems to hold up. Whatever you substitute into the framework both in terms of categorical classes, or actual instances. And because it reflects probabilities, not absolutes, it accommodates these examples as well.

Ok, I can't believe this is actually took up space in my head.

I've already stipulated that the actions of pedophiles are wrong and unacceptable. The question at hand was whether their very orientation is inherently wrong. There are many people who view the preferences of pedophiles as inherently evil or wrong, even if they don't take action on those preferences.

That's the entire point. If sexual preference is something we have to honor and respect for heterosexuals and homosexuals, why is preference immoral for pedophiles? Is sexual preference or orientation protected as a matter of biology or psychology beyond a person's control, or isn't it, and what is the characteristic that makes that determination different for a pedophile as opposed to everyone else?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Is there any act a pedophile can take that is acceptable? [hopefully rhetorical, as you and I said No above]

But if Yes. . . then what could make it acceptable?
For heterosexual relationships, informed consent is one criteria for acceptability, else it's assault.
There isn't even a basis for establishing consent in pedophilia. Cannot exist. Which was my point.

If No, then why should the preference be honored, respected, protected ?
B/c we allow and protect freedom of thought and freedom of feeling? .... True in the US, just don't act on it.

I don't know that it should be protected, but if it shouldn't, then what does that say about the claim that sexual preference is inherent and should be protected for other sexual orientations?

A big part of the argument for why people should accept homosexuality is that sexual preference is not a choice. I'm not sure how we get to have it both ways and say that sexual preference is not a choice and so it should be accepted for homosexuals, but at the same time say it's not a choice but damn those pedophiles to Hell.

We're on the way to making sexual orientation a protected class. Why is it that we're not extending the definition of "sexual orientation" to people whose sexual preference is for prepubescent children? Suppose we get to the point where sexual orientation is clearly federally protected. Let's say an employee makes it clear to in their workplace that they're homosexual. Many people would agree that the employer couldn't fire the person because of their sexual orientation. Do you think people would see it the same way if the employee let it be known that they are sexually attracted to children? If they were fired, and then they sued for unlawful firing, would they win based on their sexual orientation being protected?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

  
.. because if it can't be practiced, then it shouldn't be protected / permitted / accepted, etc.... There is no way to acceptably practice pedophilia, or bestiality, or necrophilia. . . . etc. etc..

Have whatever feelings you want. Innate or not doesn't matter. It's only the actions that matter.

Employee says he's homosexual, and living with their partner. Not a problem. B/c the assumption is the relationship is consensual, mutual etc..
Employee says he's a pedophile, and have a child in the basement. Serious problem.

Not the same. It's straightforward.

You're pretty much making the old "slippery slope" argument.

Acting on pedophilia is a crime. It's rape, and it harms the victim. And it's generally considered an egregious form of rape. It's a psychiatric disorder in the medical community, and acting on it is illegal (in most places). Homosexuality is no longer considered a disorder by the medical community and acting on it is legal (in most of the West).

The slippery slope argument is pretty silly, in my opinion. The predominant societal attitudes towards the idea of a crime against children is reasonably founded, and I'm find if it stays that way and is reflected that way in law and in the medical community.

News just in.
Pell's appeal has been dismissed, by a 2:1 majority.

Back to prison for this child rapist.

The catholic church is still deciding their response. Apparently they are conducting their own investigation, with the possible outcome of dismissing him from the priesthood. That would sure put a stop to suggestions that they are not taking this seriously.