Bishop indicted for failing to report child porn on priest's computer

I have to admit that I am a bit confused on this.

Why wouldn't the first course of action for anyone finding something like kiddie porn or someone molesting a child be to call the police?

My Church governance handbook is very plain and simple: if you see or suspect a crime within the church, call the police immediately.

If I saw one the executives at my secular job raping someone, my first course of action would not be to consult my supervisor.

Why it would be any different in any ecclesiastical setting is beyond me.

Ulairi wrote:

The Church should be taking the most active position in getting these evil men prosecuted for their crimes.

I wholeheartedly agree. Folks who care about the Catholic church should be leading the charge in demanding this pattern of abuse and concealment cease immediately, and that reparations be made to the children who suffered under the church's care.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's a matter of people feeling that--rightly or wrongly--the only time anyone is really interested in child abuse is when the Catholic Church is doing it, and a lot of those people have an ax to grind with religion in the first place.

On the one hand, I sympathize with that sentiment. On the other hand, I remember we're talking a *global* conspiracy here--this isn't some local day care center gone wrong. This is one of the richest and most powerful multinational organizations in history engaged in a cover-up and we want to know how high it went and how widespread it was.

The comparison with street gangs upthread fails for two fundamental reasons. As noted above, the Catholic Church is ostensibly a good organization, where parents (should) feel safe sending their children. The other is that, as CheezePavillion points out, the Catholic Church is a global organization which has strong ties to mainstream power structures nearly everywhere it operates.

For example, in the 112th Congress:

Number of Catholic US Senators: 24 (24%)
Number of Catholic US Representatives: 132 (30.3%)

To the best of my knowledge, there are no street gangs with representation in Congress.

[Edit: to add link to source]

CheezePavilion wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Tannhausered to hell and back, but seriously, why do you think it helps your case to equate the Catholic Church to street gangs? If you're making the case that they are equivalent criminal conspiracies that evade justice by sheltering sexual predators, I am inclined to agree with you, but I hardly think that is the case you want to make.

I think it's a matter of people feeling that--rightly or wrongly--the only time anyone is really interested in child abuse is when the Catholic Church is doing it, and a lot of those people have an ax to grind with religion in the first place.

On the one hand, I sympathize with that sentiment. On the other hand, I remember we're talking a *global* conspiracy here--this isn't some local day care center gone wrong. This is one of the richest and most powerful multinational organizations in history engaged in a cover-up and we want to know how high it went and how widespread it was. It's like something out of a Dan Brown novel, only it's real and it's a lot more evil than anything he could come up with. At that point I realize it's actually *not* unfair to single out the Catholic Church.

Even if a lot of the people who do the singling out think I'm an idiot for my other beliefs about children's rights, or just get their jollies being bigots. All in all, it's a pretty miserable, alienating topic.

Yeh, there's no real 'politics and controversy' in the subject of gang paedophilia either. It's a big deal because it's the Catholic Church, much as it would be if it were the NYPD.

It's worth pointing out that child abuse in the Catholic Church often happens BECAUSE it's trusted. This gets a lot of attention from people; the Church tells you that they are the messengers of God, and then they diddle your kids when you're not looking. This makes people really, really angry.

Street gangs running child prostitution rings are horrible, but they're not claiming to be moral exemplars, taking advantage of your trust to commit their crimes. They're just relying on the old standards of violence and coercion. People think of them as more or less like other criminals, and pay them roughly the same amount of attention.

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no street gangs with representation in Congress.

I find that a funny statement given the financial and political news of the past 4 years in the US.

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no street gangs with representation in Congress.

I find that a funny statement given the financial and political news of the past 4 years in the US.

You sure to spend a lot of time towing the party line, and now when your argument has been shredded to pieces you respond with anger because your position is indefensible.

If you feel secular child abuse is a topic that we should discuss, I encourage you to make a thread speaking about it.

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

If you want to start a thread on the issue of child abuse, go do it. No one's stopping you.

This thread, however, isn't about how numerous street gangs prostitute children. It's about how one organization--one that purports itself to be the very pinnacle of morality and the earthly representatives of god--has a long and troubling history of diddling kids and then trying to hide it's crimes.

I would expect that you as someone who obviously cares deeply about his religion would be up in arms over that fact. Instead, you seem to be up in arms about the fact that other people are pointing out that your church has a serious f*cking problem with child abuse that it--and it's members--isn't doing anything fix.

You want other people to stop associating the Catholic Church with child molesters? Force the church hierarchy to stop hiding abusive priests. And you can do this by cutting off the flow of money. Once they see that individual Catholic's aren't going to give the church any money until the issue is properly addressed they will do so. Now all you're doing is giving money to an organization that will uses it to hide criminals.

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

Wow. As someone who spends 10+ hours a week volunteering at Catholic Charities here in Austin and has worked for years with the Diocese to help improve their financial services to all Catholics, I'm not really going to brush off an accusation that I, having participated in this thread or board, have an ax to grind against the Church. You need to take a long, slow breath, and realize what it is you're doing - you are comparing apples and caber logs.

This is discussion worthy because members of the Church have spent years playing "hide the pedophile" within its ranks and attempting to claim (without saying it outright in most cases) that the clergy are beyond the reach of secular law. Saying that every single instance of child abuse deserves its own thread is like saying this is just like every instance of child abuse. And it is not. It is a systemic issue against a large organization that has managed to duck legal ramifications almost completely. So yes, it is newsworthy when that invisible shield starts to crumble. Not because it's the Catholic Church and we all just giggle with glee at seeing Catholics put down, but because of the previous factors. As has already been said, this would be equally worth discussion if the organization in question was a large police department, a national organization (such as the Boy Scouts, which hey we've actually had a thread on that), or something similar.

I can totally understand the frustration. Since I do so much work with the church, every single week it's the same super hilarious joke about how I have a baby face so I should watch my back (and various other parts). It gets old, fast, and it's annoying at the very least. But the fact remains that Church members have gotten away with it for a very long time, whereas members of any other organization would have been cuffed and jailed en masse by now. Trying to pre-empt discussion by throwing super charged Catholic victim cards around like you're St. Remy LeBeau doesn't change that.

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, there are no street gangs with representation in Congress.

I find that a funny statement given the financial and political news of the past 4 years in the US.

Sigh. I'd thought we were going to avoid having this devolve into claims that the Catholic church is unfairly victimized on these boards or in larger society.

Nobody in this thread is defending pedophiles. Nobody in this thread is saying that some kinds of child abuse matter less. Ulairi and SallyNasty are both Catholics (though I think SallyNasty is pretty solidly a former Catholic at this point) who have pointed out that the pattern of abuse, concealment and denial the church persists in is a grave concern - in SallyNasty's case, it's what drove him away from his faith.

Until the church acts decisively to root out this issue, it will continue to lose believers, as well as cede any claims to the moral high ground. Pointing to other cases of child abuse in an attempt to diminish and deflect blame, or dismissing anyone's concerns as somehow being a pawn in an anti-papist agenda, does the Catholic church a grave disservice.

I'm not sure what the throwaway line at the end of your post is about. Did I miss a news story about the Latin Kings having representation in Congress?

[Edit: to improve flow of second-to-last paragraph]

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

It's possible for the situation to be that there's clear bias AND a difference between the two that deserves to be highlighted. The two are not mutually exclusive. Like this thread seems to be more about Paleo being perplexed at why (some) Catholics freak out so much when the topic is brought up: it's a fair question that deserves an answer.

News flash..there is NO difference between either.

Street gangs don't tell you that they are moral people, that they represent God's will on earth, and that you can trust them because of this.

There is a HUGE difference. The Catholic Church is using its position of trust to shield criminals in order to KEEP that trust under false pretenses.

Diddling kids and then using your religion's power to hide the crime is a lot worse than just diddling kids.

And note: as Bloo Driver points out, the Scouts were doing something similar, and we blasted them, too.

KingGorilla wrote:

My reaction-Misdemeanor? Not a class C felony 1-5 years

I agree with King. Why isn't this Bishop being charged with felony obstruction or conspiracy charges? He probably won't serve time with a misdemeanor charge. He needs to be made an example of so that when Catholic (or any other organization's) officials are faced with the choice of reporting a crime or saving some face, they make the correct choice.

Nevin73 wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

My reaction-Misdemeanor? Not a class C felony 1-5 years

I agree with King. Why isn't this Bishop being charged with felony obstruction or conspiracy charges? He probably won't serve time with a misdemeanor charge. He needs to be made an example of so that when Catholic (or any other organization's) officials are faced with the choice of reporting a crime or saving some face, they make the correct choice.

Supposedly what they found wasn't sufficient to hold him on a stronger charge, but the prosecutor is planning to push for enforcing the max sentence (1 year jail time) even though it's a misdemeanor. Should be interesting to see what actually happens... if they find something else over the course of the investigation maybe they can up it to a felony.

darrenl wrote:

But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

Yeah guys! Stop forcing prominent members of the Catholic Church to protect criminals. It isn't funny anymore.
EDIT: Curse you Nested Quotes!!

darrenl wrote:

So...what I'm hearing then is that there are two classes of kids who are abused: one by trusted institutions and ones by criminals. Apparently, according to this community of enlightened and caring individuals...one deserves attention and discussion and the other doesn't; "Oh, those are horrible Darren, but....". Bravo. /slow clap

News flash..there is NO difference between either. An abused kid is an abused kid. ANYONE who does it is a criminal. Period. Street gang member, Catholic Priest, Protestant minister, teacher, soccer coach. All of them. But, anything that doesn't kick the Catholic Church in the teeth is worth the mention...right guys?

If you're all so interested in the abused kids...and I know you are...then you'd be highlighting each story you find with its own thread...but you don't. I find it laughable at the ass grabbing and circle jerking that I see to justify the clear bias here. I did a quick search and the majority of child abuse discussions in this community have to do with the Catholic Church....and in that time, literally thousands of stories were ignored.

Let's face it...in the GWJ community, sadly the thread titled "Priest diddles a kid again" is MUCH sexier than "street gangs prostitute thousands of children", or "Father abuses 2 month old". It's FOX news all over again...ironically...in that it supports a narrative with very little concern for the real issue of child abuse.

It isn't because it is "sexier." It is because the scandal is greater and more shocking. The Catholic Church wants to portray itself as a moral authority but continues to allow known pedophiles within its ranks and has a hierarchy that seems more than happy to provide cover for them. You are absolutely correct that an abused kid in an abused kid. The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

The current topic here is the bishop of St. Louis and other diocesan officials who knew for months (his own words) about kiddie porn photos on the priests computer, but did nothing. That is why it is particularly shocking.

But I reject your claim that because we are focusing on the abuses within the RCC, such action means we have very little concern for the real issue of child abuse. You have set up a false dichotomy that says you either are concerned with the real issue of child abuse or you are concerned with the RCC's role in covering for pedophiles. It isn't either/or. I am concerned about both.

Sadly, it is the RCC that seems to be the group least concerned about child abuse since it is more than willing to harbor pedophiles.

I guess I'm just very frustrated over seeing these things. Scratch that...I'm angry. This thread is the, like, at least the 5th one I've seen since coming to this community....meanwhile thousands of stories and kids are ignored.

I'm not sure who to be more angry at: the priests and bishops who betrayed the trust of these kids, their parents and their parishes....or the media and others who portray every priest as a pedophile and every bishop as a "guess where the pedophile is" game show host. It's getting sensationalized because, like Pheonix said, it's more "shocking".

Phoenix Rev wrote:

It isn't because it is "sexier." It is because the scandal is greater and more shocking. The Catholic Church wants to portray itself as a moral authority but continues to allow known pedophiles within its ranks and has a hierarchy that seems more than happy to provide cover for them. You are absolutely correct that an abused kid in an abused kid.
.

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s, and today's priests are put through a litany of psych tests that would scare you...), nor is it "happy" to provide cover for them, that is an emotion that is clearly not evident. Choose your words more carefully please. Nobody is happy about this.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

Protection by your sibling or cousin isn't exactly what I'd call protection by the bureaucracy of the Church. You keep trying to equate two very different things so you can then get indignant that we're not talking about both of them, thereby proving bias, but it's falling quite flat.

darrenl wrote:

I guess I'm just very frustrated over seeing these things. Scratch that...I'm angry. This thread is the, like, at least the 5th one I've seen since coming to this community....meanwhile thousands of stories and kids are ignored.

I'm not sure who to be more angry at: the priests and bishops who betrayed the trust of these kids, their parents and their parishes....or the media and others who portray every priest as a pedophile and every bishop as a "guess where the pedophile is" game show host.

That shouldn't even be a question.

It's getting sensationalized because, like Pheonix said, it's more "shocking".

Well, is that a bad thing, let alone an anti-Catholic thing?

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s, and today's priests are put through a litany of psych tests that would scare you...), nor is it "happy" to provide cover for them, that is an emotion that is clearly not evident. Choose your words more carefully please. Nobody is happy about this.

...

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

While to some extent this is true, I don't think the major issue people have is with the Church allowing pedophiles into its ranks--it's going to happen to every organization. It's the cover up, the effort to keep this from becoming a police matter at all costs. The article from the original OP has nothing to do with something from 50 years ago: it's about something that happened last year. Why does this keep happening?

darrenl wrote:

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks

Perhaps you missed the link to the story about the Kansas City bishop:

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Kansas City’s Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest’s computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children.

Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese Bishop Robert Finn, the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman, pleaded not guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse.

Darren - did you ever think that maybe the reason that these stories get so much play is because there is a lot of Catholics and former Catholics on the board, and they feel that they have a personal stake in the matter?

darrenl wrote:

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s, and today's priests are put through a litany of psych tests that would scare you...), nor is it "happy" to provide cover for them, that is an emotion that is clearly not evident. Choose your words more carefully please. Nobody is happy about this.

Source that for me. I have a great-uncle priest, 3 former monk uncles, and a former nun aunt. I personally know of at least 2 abuse scandals in communities where I practiced in the last 5 years.

It is great that you are enthusiastic about your Catholicism - I really mean that, without snark, but your enthusiasm doesn't mean the church is the ivory tower you want it to be.

Bloo Driver wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

Protection by your sibling or cousin isn't exactly what I'd call protection by the bureaucracy of the Church. You keep trying to equate two very different things so you can then get indignant that we're not talking about both of them, thereby proving bias, but it's falling quite flat.

It's unfortunate that you see two different classes of "covering up for"...as if one form is worse than the other. Both hurt the child in question.

Make up all the motivations you want for me...I really don't give a rats ass. Simple fact: A mother covering up for a father has the same outcome on the abused child as the bishop covering up for the priest, i.e. the child does not get the help that they need in the time that they need it.

darrenl wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

Protection by your sibling or cousin isn't exactly what I'd call protection by the bureaucracy of the Church. You keep trying to equate two very different things so you can then get indignant that we're not talking about both of them, thereby proving bias, but it's falling quite flat.

It's unfortunate that you see two different classes of "covering up for"...as if one form is worse than the other. Both hurt the child in question.

What about the next child? And the child after that? Unless the woman is old and lives in a shoe, there's a much lower limit to the number of kids that pass through a family than pass through a parish. Especially if covering up involves shuffling the person around to new parishes.

darrenl wrote:

I'm not sure who to be more angry at: the priests and bishops who betrayed the trust of these kids, their parents and their parishes....or the media and others who portray every priest as a pedophile and every bishop as a "guess where the pedophile is" game show host.

I honestly hope this isn't what you actually meant to say. That looks like a nearly delusional level of persecution complex. The Catholic Church has earned every ounce of crap it has gotten in the media for these scandals, and then some. I say this as someone who was raised in the Church, confirmed, and got married in one earlier this year. The Church leadership has absolutely destroyed all credibility it had on this front over the past few decades, and continues to try and dig the hole even deeper.

SallyNasty wrote:

Darren - did you ever think that maybe the reason that these stories get so much play is because there is a lot of Catholics and former Catholics on the board, and they feel that they have a personal stake in the matter?

darrenl wrote:

The church does not "continue to allow" pedophiles within it's ranks (...most of the cases are from the 1960s and 1970s, and today's priests are put through a litany of psych tests that would scare you...), nor is it "happy" to provide cover for them, that is an emotion that is clearly not evident. Choose your words more carefully please. Nobody is happy about this.

Source that for me. I have a great-uncle priest, 3 former monk uncles, and a former nun aunt. I personally know of at least 2 abuse scandals in communities where I practiced in the last 5 years.

It is great that you are enthusiastic about your Catholicism - I really mean that, without snark, but your enthusiasm doesn't mean the church is the ivory tower you want it to be.

Done:

https://www.americamagazine.org/cont...

Myth: The abuse is still going on at the same rate. Fact: The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960’s, peaked in the 70’s, declined in the 80’s and by the 90’s had returned to the levels of the 1950’s.

This American Life podcast that was, in part, on this very topic.

"Happy" may not be the right word, Darren, but "willing" most certainly is. Even the original article indicates the guy knew about the child pornography for months and didn't do anything about it. If that's not a willingness to turn a blind eye to pedophilic activity, I don't know what to tell you.

And as far as people not looking at other articles, the truth of the matter is that we don't always see every article that pops up around the country, much less around the globe. We tend to focus on big articles, and each one of us in here has our own filters on for certain types of articles. The Catholic Church's scandal is completely on its own head because of a systemic willingness to shuttle around priests who have been suspected of (or worse, caught) molesting young children in order to cover things up. It happens in Mexico, Belgium, Ireland, the U.S., and many other countries.

As others have said, the reason it's such a blow when it's the Catholic Church is because of what it touts itself to be. Abuse itself is a horrible thing no matter who is responsible for it, and nobody, nobody here has said anything to the contrary. But when the abuse comes from people whom children are raised to trust and to put their faith in, the pain of it is beyond the physical or mental, it reaches the spiritual level as well in this case. Does the media have a hand in making this as big a deal as it is? Definitely... they could also be brushing this under the rug if they wanted. But it's not "gotcha" media when it's been going on for at least 20+ years (I remember hearing about this sort of stuff when I was a teen) in the media. Once it's become that much of a cultural staple, it's indicative that the Church has a monstrous problem on its hands.

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

darrenl wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
darrenl wrote:
Phoenix Rev wrote:

The difference, however, is that most fathers molesting their daughters are not being provided cover.

...that is also a very general statement. In reported cases, the mother and other family members cover for the father....or they turn a blind eye, which amounts to the same thing.

Protection by your sibling or cousin isn't exactly what I'd call protection by the bureaucracy of the Church. You keep trying to equate two very different things so you can then get indignant that we're not talking about both of them, thereby proving bias, but it's falling quite flat.

It's unfortunate that you see two different classes of "covering up for"...as if one form is worse than the other. Both hurt the child in question.

Make up all the motivations you want for me...I really don't give a rats ass. Simple fact: A mother covering up for a father has the same outcome on the abused child as the bishop covering up for the priest, i.e. the child does not get the help that they need in the time that they need it.

I can't tell if you're purposefully misreading my point or not. I am not making any differentiation between what happens to the child, and no where do I actually say anything that actually implies that. The line of reasoning here is why this case sticks out among all others. If all you can bring to the table, though, is varied shades of "how dare you!" and "shame on you!", I think I'll let you go on your way.

SallyNasty wrote:

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

But...you asked for a source which backup up my claim that most were in the 60's and 70's. I provided it. Surprise surprise that you now changed the concern from "source from assertion that cases are from 60's and 70's" to "prove it's not happening AT ALL today"....I said nothing of the sort.

I provided the source you requested for he claim that I made. Accept it or don't...but try not to change the question after the fact.

darrenl wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

But...you asked for a source which backup up my claim that most were in the 60's and 70's. I provided it. Surprise surprise that you now changed the concern from "source from assertion that cases are from 60's and 70's" to "prove it's not happening AT ALL today....I said nothing of the sort.

Sorry, Darren, I honestly did think you were implying that it didn't happen at all. My mistake was made in good faith.

Don't vent your frustration/attitude at me. I go out of my way to try and be tolerant/polite towards you.

SallyNasty wrote:
darrenl wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Ummm, but it is still going on? Your source proves nothing. It is happening less is not a good argument against it happening at all.

But...you asked for a source which backup up my claim that most were in the 60's and 70's. I provided it. Surprise surprise that you now changed the concern from "source from assertion that cases are from 60's and 70's" to "prove it's not happening AT ALL today....I said nothing of the sort.

Sorry, Darren, I honestly did think you were implying that it didn't happen at all. My mistake was made in good faith.

Don't vent your frustration/attitude at me. I go out of my way to try and be tolerant/polite towards you.

I know it was in good faith...and my apologies too if I came off too strong on that reply.

I don't want it happening at all...but reality is against me on this one.